Subject to ATC approvaldigits_ wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:42 pmIn your example, if one is on a visual approach on an IFR flight plan, would the departing traffic be allowed to depart VFR on an IFR flight plan?Redneck_pilot86 wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 1:37 pm Whitehorse is a great example of why. As a non radar environment in the mountains, they can only have one aircraft on the approach/missed at a time. Anyone else will be given a hold. This can become extremely limiting as minimum safe is 11,300 and non pressurized aircraft like the caravans and navajos can't go above 13,000, so there is only 2 altitudes and 2 fixes to hold on. Cancelling allows the next one to start an approach or depart, where the visual approach does not. These approaches are upwards of 30 miles, and can take 10-15 minutes before landing, longer in a missed approach.
Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
No, please don't do this. We (as tower controllers) cannot make a good plan if we don't know everyone's intentions. If you can do your approaches simulated, it will generally be more efficient for me and you. If you can't then so be it, there is no workaround.
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
It is the norm with operators that allow it. As is "VFR" departures. As stated, usually its the company SOPs that don't allow it at bigger airlines. Also to your original question, a Visual Approach is still an IFR clearance, that's the problem.Dronepiper wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 3:37 pm So why don't IFR aircraft just cancel IFR comming into an airport like YQT, instead of requesting a visual?
I guess I should write something here.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
I always thought it hilarious when training aircraft would announce they’re conducting the “simulated RNAV approach.” What the hell a simulated RNAV? You’re doing the RNAV approach, in real life, not in a simulator. Who cares if the weather is VMC? Call it what it is.
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
This whole topic literally explains why it is not hilarious and why you should simulate it in VMC if possible.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:54 am I always thought it hilarious when training aircraft would announce they’re conducting the “simulated RNAV approach.” What the hell a simulated RNAV? You’re doing the RNAV approach, in real life, not in a simulator. Who cares if the weather is VMC? Call it what it is.
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: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
The day I have a delay in my clearance for ‘incoming traffic’ because some jerk like you are shooting approach in VMC for training, I will definitely call you out on the frequency.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:54 am I always thought it hilarious when training aircraft would announce they’re conducting the “simulated RNAV approach.” What the hell a simulated RNAV? You’re doing the RNAV approach, in real life, not in a simulator. Who cares if the weather is VMC? Call it what it is.
Don’t file IFR if you don’t need to.
Master of Cessna 172
It has been 0 days since I've almost died in an airplane.
Never trust a student with fuel and oil.
It has been 0 days since I've almost died in an airplane.
Never trust a student with fuel and oil.
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
I have called guys out for doing this very thing. Fly an instrument approach, while VFR. Who gives a sh!t how you find the runway? Use the T fix for all I care, but do so VFR don't bung up the system for everyone else.Hilroy wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 8:26 amThe day I have a delay in my clearance for ‘incoming traffic’ because some jerk like you are shooting approach in VMC for training, I will definitely call you out on the frequency.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:54 am I always thought it hilarious when training aircraft would announce they’re conducting the “simulated RNAV approach.” What the hell a simulated RNAV? You’re doing the RNAV approach, in real life, not in a simulator. Who cares if the weather is VMC? Call it what it is.
Don’t file IFR if you don’t need to.
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
Hmm okay. Let me rephrase.fishface wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 7:09 pmSubject to ATC approvaldigits_ wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 2:42 pmIn your example, if one is on a visual approach on an IFR flight plan, would the departing traffic be allowed to depart VFR on an IFR flight plan?Redneck_pilot86 wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 1:37 pm Whitehorse is a great example of why. As a non radar environment in the mountains, they can only have one aircraft on the approach/missed at a time. Anyone else will be given a hold. This can become extremely limiting as minimum safe is 11,300 and non pressurized aircraft like the caravans and navajos can't go above 13,000, so there is only 2 altitudes and 2 fixes to hold on. Cancelling allows the next one to start an approach or depart, where the visual approach does not. These approaches are upwards of 30 miles, and can take 10-15 minutes before landing, longer in a missed approach.
Assuming nice weather. From an ATC point of view: in which situation would a plane that is not cancelling hold up departing traffic, if the departing traffic requests a VFR departure.
A few posts here are basically saying "cancel IFR and proceed VFR, so I can get out IFR". Why would the opposite "I keep my IFR, you want to leave, you go VFR" not be an acceptable solution?
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: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
I guess my answer was a little short. Yes an IFR aircraft can request a VFR departure to not have to hold for release. It’s just up to ATC to approve such a request.
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
You say 'cancel IFR' and ATC says 'roger'.
A VFR departure still needs to be approved by center, who can say no if they think it will mess with their separation down the line.
- Redneck_pilot86
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
- Location: between 60 and 70
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
digits_ wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:40 pmHmm okay. Let me rephrase.
Assuming nice weather. From an ATC point of view: in which situation would a plane that is not cancelling hold up departing traffic, if the departing traffic requests a VFR departure.
A few posts here are basically saying "cancel IFR and proceed VFR, so I can get out IFR". Why would the opposite "I keep my IFR, you want to leave, you go VFR" not be an acceptable solution?
Take a scenario with 6000 foot ceilings and south winds. The Caravan inbound is just inside the 30NM arc when they get visual. The 737 departing for Vancouver has to wait until they land, which will be 10+ minutes. If the inbound cancels, that 737 can depart and be long gone before the caravan lands, but its not really feasible to maintain VFR for that 10 minutes.
The only three things a wingman should ever say: 1. "Two's up" 2. "You're on fire" 3. "I'll take the fat one"
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
Correct me if I'm wrong but in my mind if someone announce that they are conducting an RNAV approach versus a Simulated RNAV approach, First one is under IFR rules, the second just VFR.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:54 am I always thought it hilarious when training aircraft would announce they’re conducting the “simulated RNAV approach.” What the hell a simulated RNAV? You’re doing the RNAV approach, in real life, not in a simulator. Who cares if the weather is VMC? Call it what it is.
So I'm not sure about your issue there...
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
A simulated RNAV is an RNAV approach conducted without an IFR clearance in controlled airspace.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:54 am I always thought it hilarious when training aircraft would announce they’re conducting the “simulated RNAV approach.” What the hell a simulated RNAV? You’re doing the RNAV approach, in real life, not in a simulator. Who cares if the weather is VMC? Call it what it is.
You say it so the VFR traffic or MF or tower know you’ll be coming via an RNAV profile with a 10-14 mile final perhaps with a T fix.
Glad you find it hilarious. Do you find simulated engine failures hilarious, too? I mean, they are just VFR.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
I find then a little more than useless - transport has create so many rules the is no "startle factor" and have become scripted. Airborne training is goig the way of the dodo and that's a good thing.Do you find simulated engine failures hilarious,
Sorry for the drift, back to it, boils down to common sense, courtesy and airmanship, unless your company policy does not allow you to cancel. It's the skippers call and no amount of whining or bitching is going to change that. Chill and relax, don't let yourself fall into the "get even" mindset. Them you just lowered yourself to that other buzzard's level not knowing if he even had a choice.
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
http://www.blackair.ca
-
- Rank 8
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:50 pm
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
You’re still doing an RNAV/ILS/NDB approach. There’s nothing “simulated” about it.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 9:17 amA simulated RNAV is an RNAV approach conducted without an IFR clearance in controlled airspace.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:54 am I always thought it hilarious when training aircraft would announce they’re conducting the “simulated RNAV approach.” What the hell a simulated RNAV? You’re doing the RNAV approach, in real life, not in a simulator. Who cares if the weather is VMC? Call it what it is.
You say it so the VFR traffic or MF or tower know you’ll be coming via an RNAV profile with a 10-14 mile final perhaps with a T fix.
Glad you find it hilarious. Do you find simulated engine failures hilarious, too? I mean, they are just VFR.
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
Yes there is. You can let students bust the limitations without risk of collision or violations, you can have less separation with other traffic, you could fly it with expired charts, you could fly it to simulated LPV minimums without having the certified equipment. It's merely informing ATC that you are going to roughly fly the RNAV approach path while still being VFR.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 9:44 amYou’re still doing an RNAV/ILS/NDB approach. There’s nothing “simulated” about it.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 9:17 amA simulated RNAV is an RNAV approach conducted without an IFR clearance in controlled airspace.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 6:54 am I always thought it hilarious when training aircraft would announce they’re conducting the “simulated RNAV approach.” What the hell a simulated RNAV? You’re doing the RNAV approach, in real life, not in a simulator. Who cares if the weather is VMC? Call it what it is.
You say it so the VFR traffic or MF or tower know you’ll be coming via an RNAV profile with a 10-14 mile final perhaps with a T fix.
Glad you find it hilarious. Do you find simulated engine failures hilarious, too? I mean, they are just VFR.
Try to get cleared for an RNAV approach while VFR. Good luck.
Now try to get cleared for a simulated RNAV approach while VFR. See the difference?
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
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:27 pm
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
You won’t get cleared by ATC for a simulated approach while VFR eitherdigits_ wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 9:51 amYes there is. You can let students bust the limitations without risk of collision or violations, you can have less separation with other traffic, you could fly it with expired charts, you could fly it to simulated LPV minimums without having the certified equipment. It's merely informing ATC that you are going to roughly fly the RNAV approach path while still being VFR.PostmasterGeneral wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 9:44 amYou’re still doing an RNAV/ILS/NDB approach. There’s nothing “simulated” about it.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 9:17 am
A simulated RNAV is an RNAV approach conducted without an IFR clearance in controlled airspace.
You say it so the VFR traffic or MF or tower know you’ll be coming via an RNAV profile with a 10-14 mile final perhaps with a T fix.
Glad you find it hilarious. Do you find simulated engine failures hilarious, too? I mean, they are just VFR.
Try to get cleared for an RNAV approach while VFR. Good luck.
Now try to get cleared for a simulated RNAV approach while VFR. See the difference?
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
Good point. Get approval from ATC then to fly the simulated RNAV/ILS approach.Driving Comet wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 10:00 am
You won’t get cleared by ATC for a simulated approach while VFR either
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: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
All these issues go away in uncontrolled airspace I'm actually surprised at the number of people I hear not understanding what uncontrolled airspace is.
I have one sore point in canadian airspace and that is why do't they designate airspace like the rest of the world. With such a vast country and long distances between wx and atc at lower levels why are we not flying QNE - flight levels are far safer.
I have one sore point in canadian airspace and that is why do't they designate airspace like the rest of the world. With such a vast country and long distances between wx and atc at lower levels why are we not flying QNE - flight levels are far safer.
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
http://www.blackair.ca
Re: Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??
From what I understand, they actually do. The flight levels start above the highes obstacle, with a safe margin, per country. That means that in flat countries like the Netherlands you have low transition altitudes. The highest mountains in Canada are around 17000 ft if I recall correctly, so add 1000 ft safety margin and you are at FL180. That does make it silly when flying in Saskatchewan, but it looks like they wanted to cover the whole country under one rule.valleyboy wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 11:08 am All these issues go away in uncontrolled airspace I'm actually surprised at the number of people I hear not understanding what uncontrolled airspace is.
I have one sore point in canadian airspace and that is why do't they designate airspace like the rest of the world. With such a vast country and long distances between wx and atc at lower levels why are we not flying QNE - flight levels are far safer.
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