Deviating from a published IFR approach.
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Deviating from a published IFR approach.
Scenario is this:
Precision approach to an airport. Wx is NSW OVC 300 4SM. Above this thin layer, there are no clouds.
MSAs are over 10,000 feet (think Cranbrook or Terrace or Smithers), but visibility is unlimited and terrain is in sight above it. No radar coverage. Airspace is still controlled.
I don’t feel like hanging up at 10 or 11k to intercept an IF 30 miles away from the airport if I can keep terrain in sight and self vector myself on to the approach before the FAF and go below terrain.
How do I do this, legally?
Discuss.
Precision approach to an airport. Wx is NSW OVC 300 4SM. Above this thin layer, there are no clouds.
MSAs are over 10,000 feet (think Cranbrook or Terrace or Smithers), but visibility is unlimited and terrain is in sight above it. No radar coverage. Airspace is still controlled.
I don’t feel like hanging up at 10 or 11k to intercept an IF 30 miles away from the airport if I can keep terrain in sight and self vector myself on to the approach before the FAF and go below terrain.
How do I do this, legally?
Discuss.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
In uncontrolled airspace you can legally do what you want,so you could get yourself to the faf in whatever way you want. But I don't think you are technically flying a published IFR approach in that case.
In controlled airspace with radar coverage, they could vector you to X mile final in a more efficient way, which will end with the published (missed) approach.
In controlled airspace without radar coverage you are probably hooped and will have to follow the full published approach. But even then it shouldn't matter to ATC, as the airspace in the area of the airport is protected for you anyway.
In controlled airspace with radar coverage, they could vector you to X mile final in a more efficient way, which will end with the published (missed) approach.
In controlled airspace without radar coverage you are probably hooped and will have to follow the full published approach. But even then it shouldn't matter to ATC, as the airspace in the area of the airport is protected for you anyway.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
Contact approach.
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
How would that work without visual reference to the surface?
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
You're looking at the sides of 10 000' mountains. Surface.
Liberalism itself as a religion where its tenets cannot be proven, but provides a sense of moral rectitude at no real cost.
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
To carry out a contact approach you have to be (TC AIM):
If the weather is overcast at 300', then you know you're not going to be able to continue to the destination while remaining clear of clouds.operating clear of clouds with at least 1NM flight visibility and a reasonable expectation of continuing to the destination airport in those conditions
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
I though maybe a contact approach too.. and (maybe) might have done it once or twice or three times.
However.....
However.....
A contact approach is an approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan or flight itinerary having an ATC clearance, operating clear of clouds with at least 1 NM flight visibility and a reasonable expectation of continuing to the destination airport in those conditions, may deviate from the IAP and proceed to the destination airport by visual reference to the surface of the earth. In accordance with CAR 602.124, the aircraft shall be flown at an altitude of at least 1 000 ft above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal radius of 5 NM from the estimated position of the aircraft in flight until the required visual reference is acquired in order to conduct a normal landing.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
... and 1500' or 2000' in mountainous regions areas 2, 3 and 4, and 1 and 5, respectively.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
Oh wow. That is what it says, doesn't it?
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
- youhavecontrol
- Rank 5
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:17 am
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
From the scenario you gave, I don't see a contact or visual approach working, as you still need to go through the clouds in the final descent. Perhaps the 1000' on top would work to get you there until the point you intercept the final approach. From my understanding, it's designed for situations like this to allow aircraft to still operate above a cloud deck even if they can't climb above the MEA, or don't want to/need to.
TC AIM RAC8.7:
“1 000-ft-on-Top” Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) Flight
1 000-ft-on-top IFR flight may be conducted provided that
(a) the flight is made at least 1 000 ft above all cloud, haze,
smoke, or other formation;
(b) the flight visibility above the formation is at least
three miles;
(c) the top of the formation is well defined;
(d) the altitude appropriate to the direction of flight is
maintained when cruising in level flight;
(e) the “1 000-ft-on-top” flight has been authorized by the
appropriate ATC unit; and
(f) the aircraft will operate within Class B airspace at or
below 12 500 ft ASL, Class C, D, or E airspace.
NOTE:
ATC does not apply separation to aircraft operating 1 000-ft-ontop except in the following conditions:
1. at night, separation is applied between an aircraft operating
1 000-ft-on-top and other aircraft if any of the aircraft are
holding; and
2. between aircraft operating 1 000-ft-on-top and an aircraft
operating on an altitude reservation approval.
TC AIM RAC8.7:
“1 000-ft-on-Top” Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) Flight
1 000-ft-on-top IFR flight may be conducted provided that
(a) the flight is made at least 1 000 ft above all cloud, haze,
smoke, or other formation;
(b) the flight visibility above the formation is at least
three miles;
(c) the top of the formation is well defined;
(d) the altitude appropriate to the direction of flight is
maintained when cruising in level flight;
(e) the “1 000-ft-on-top” flight has been authorized by the
appropriate ATC unit; and
(f) the aircraft will operate within Class B airspace at or
below 12 500 ft ASL, Class C, D, or E airspace.
NOTE:
ATC does not apply separation to aircraft operating 1 000-ft-ontop except in the following conditions:
1. at night, separation is applied between an aircraft operating
1 000-ft-on-top and other aircraft if any of the aircraft are
holding; and
2. between aircraft operating 1 000-ft-on-top and an aircraft
operating on an altitude reservation approval.
"I found that Right Rudder you kept asking for."
Re: Deviating from a published IFR approach.
Just tell ATC that you will fly with visual references to whatever point you will intercept and begin the approach.
Wahunga!