Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??

[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.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What you are simulating is not flying an approach, you are simulating IFR procedures while flying under VFR rules. I have flown hundreds of simulated IFR approaches,at controlled airports. All started with a request to the tower for what I wanted, followed by a clearance that said cleared for the simulated XXX via a transition, a heading or self vectoring ending with the requirement to maintain VFR at all times.

With respect to guys practicing IFR under an IFR flight plan at uncontrolled airports on sunny Saturdays. All the VFR traffic will not know where all the IFR approach fixes are, so reporting over BUMFK will be entirely useless to all the VFR traffic in the area so please add a geographic reference. eg "Hateplanes traffic ABC is over ASSHL at 2000 ft 6 mi West of the airport, Hateplanes"

[JigglyBus]

What you are simulating is not flying an approach, you are simulating IFR procedures while flying under VFR rules. I have flown hundreds of simulated IFR approaches,at controlled airports. All started with a request to the tower for what I wanted, followed by a clearance that said cleared for the simulated XXX via a transition, a heading or self vectoring ending with the requirement to maintain VFR at all times.

I hate to correct you Big Pists, but ATC is not allowed to clear anyone for a simulated approach. They could could say 'simulated approach approved, maintain VFR at all times', but they definitely can't clear you for it. It's explicitly not allowed within Manops/MATS.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that they didn't, I'm just saying that they are not allowed to.

[valleyboy]

From what I understand, they actually do

Again a little drift but I tend to disagree there is no reason not to do what they do in Europe and transition levels are assigned and are not fixed. I worry much more about running into people (lower levels) with improper or out of date alt settings. I can see the object behind the thinking to make it less complicated for the dumb pilots but anyone who is flying and not always considering terrain and obstructions, well I will say no more.

Back to topic this issue obviously rears it's ugly head in "uncontrolled airports" and likely out of direct approach radar. The other consideration is that they are students or being trained and they are using SOP speeds, we all know that what happens on a training flight does not translate well in day to day normal ops, like assigning 160 kts to final fix in some parts of the world free speed is approved below fl 100 , add 300 kts into the mix -- lmfaoooo nope no excuse to bitch about it - it is what is. You got to learn to do it right so at least you have an idea how to be stabilised at 1000 feet.

[digits_]

From what I understand, they actually do

Again a little drift but I tend to disagree there is no reason not to do what they do in Europe and transition levels are assigned and are not fixed. I worry much more about running into people (lower levels) with improper or out of date alt settings. I can see the object behind the thinking to make it less complicated for the dumb pilots but anyone who is flying and not always considering terrain and obstructions, well I will say no more.

The transition altitude is fixed per country if I recall correctly. The transition level depends on the altimeter settings and varies. If the Netherlands had a 17000 ft mountain, their transition altitude would be something like FL180 as well. Canada has 17000 ft mountains, so its transition altitude is FL180. The only difference is that Canada is a gazillion times the size of the Netherlands, which gives funny results.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What you are simulating is not flying an approach, you are simulating IFR procedures while flying under VFR rules. I have flown hundreds of simulated IFR approaches,at controlled airports. All started with a request to the tower for what I wanted, followed by a clearance that said cleared for the simulated XXX via a transition, a heading or self vectoring ending with the requirement to maintain VFR at all times.

I hate to correct you Big Pists, but ATC is not allowed to clear anyone for a simulated approach. They could could say 'simulated approach approved, maintain VFR at all times', but they definitely can't clear you for it. It's explicitly not allowed within Manops/MATS.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that they didn't, I'm just saying that they are not allowed to.

I miss spoke Jiggly bus is correct. However from an operational perspective the intent is the same. The tower knows what I want to do it and have approved it. There is also the understanding that the tower may revoke or modify that approval if I am going to get in the way of real IFR traffic. Like every interaction with ATC if you are flexible and professional with ATC you will almost always get what you want.

[fishface]

From what I understand, they actually do

Again a little drift but I tend to disagree there is no reason not to do what they do in Europe and transition levels are assigned and are not fixed. I worry much more about running into people (lower levels) with improper or out of date alt settings. I can see the object behind the thinking to make it less complicated for the dumb pilots but anyone who is flying and not always considering terrain and obstructions, well I will say no more.

The transition altitude is fixed per country if I recall correctly. The transition level depends on the altimeter settings and varies. If the Netherlands had a 17000 ft mountain, their transition altitude would be something like FL180 as well. Canada has 17000 ft mountains, so its transition altitude is FL180. The only difference is that Canada is a gazillion times the size of the Netherlands, which gives funny results.

I think it’s because we copied our neighbours to the south more than anything else.
Lots of mountainous countries have low transition altitudes.
I think it’s better...safer

[valleyboy]

Indeed we seem to always follow the American way.

[goldeneagle]

The transition altitude is fixed per country if I recall correctly. The transition level depends on the altimeter settings and varies. If the Netherlands had a 17000 ft mountain, their transition altitude would be something like FL180 as well. Canada has 17000 ft mountains, so its transition altitude is FL180. The only difference is that Canada is a gazillion times the size of the Netherlands, which gives funny results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... _of_Canada

Mt Logan reaches up to over 19,000 feet, 19,541 listed on that page, others list it as 19,551. Either way, it's well into the flight levels.

So no, transition altitude is not based on highest mountain in a country, if it were, in Canada we'd be using 20 or 21 thousand.

[goingnowherefast]

What's the transition altitude/level in northern domestic airspace? Certantly no mountains in the Arctic (sarcasm)!

In southern domestic airspace, I don't understand why the transition altitude isn't 10,000 or 12,000 to encompass pressurized airplanes and the performance/range typical of those aircraft. 18,000 works too, so I don't particularly care. Give me one transition altitude across the whole country/continent so it's easy to remember and lets move on.

To keep this on topic, if it's Day VFR and you have a good understanding of the traffic in the area, don't do a visual approach, just cancel IFR. However, if you haven't a clue where the other airplanes are, maybe stick with IFR and let ATC keep you apart.

At night, 705 aircraft can't cancel IFR, so a visual approach or a full instrument approach are the only options.

[photofly]

The transition altitude is fixed per country if I recall correctly.

It varies within country too.

Looking at some Greenland plates, it varies 6000/7000/9000.
In England it's 3000, 6000 or 5000 depending on where you are, and what time of day it is
https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/P ... en-GB.html