Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??

[fishface]

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.

In 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?

Subject to ATC approval

[A346Dude]

Good information, thanks!

Does that mean ATC would prefer IFR training aircraft to plan to land and then change their mind over the treshold?

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.

[Maynard]

So why don't IFR aircraft just cancel IFR comming into an airport like YQT, instead of requesting a visual?

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.

[PostmasterGeneral]

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.

[digits_]

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.

This whole topic literally explains why it is not hilarious and why you should simulate it in VMC if possible.

[Hilroy]

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.

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.

Don’t file IFR if you don’t need to.

[PostmasterGeneral]

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.

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.

Don’t file IFR if you don’t need to.

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.

[digits_]

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.

In 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?

Subject to ATC approval

Hmm 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?

[fishface]

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.

[xyzzy]

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?

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]

In 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?

Subject to ATC approval

Hmm 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.

[TG]

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.

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.

So I'm not sure about your issue there...

[iflyforpie]

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.

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.

[valleyboy]

Do you find simulated engine failures hilarious,

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.
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.

[PostmasterGeneral]

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.

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.

You’re still doing an RNAV/ILS/NDB approach. There’s nothing “simulated” about it.

[digits_]

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.

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.

You’re still doing an RNAV/ILS/NDB approach. There’s nothing “simulated” about it.

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.

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?

[Driving Comet]

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.

You’re still doing an RNAV/ILS/NDB approach. There’s nothing “simulated” about it.

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.

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?

You won’t get cleared by ATC for a simulated approach while VFR either

[digits_]

You won’t get cleared by ATC for a simulated approach while VFR either

Good point. Get approval from ATC then to fly the simulated RNAV/ILS approach.

[valleyboy]

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.

[digits_]

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.

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.