RobertL18C wrote:
Have never come across this ‘visual approach’ concept.
Really…? A visual approach means an approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain (EASA Air Ops definition.)
In the interests of promoting safety please explain how quoting a definition out of context relates to the concept of CDFA and actions at DA?
My view of this approach is it is a normal approach until the DH. You either have the runway in sight at the DH or you do not (CDFA). If not, you go around. If you do you continue you are VFR according to the plate. Which actually is more constraining than an IFR approach ie you have 4.2 miles where you must maintain VFR rules.
It is not always more constraining. Take for instance the minimum level to be flown…
VFR: 500 FT above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 M from the aircraft.
IFR: a level that is at least 1 000 FT above the highest obstacle located within 8 KM of the estimated position of the aircraft.
This makes it “easier” to proceed VFR in mountaneous terrain like we see here.
airways wrote:
It is not always more constraining. Take for instance the minimum level to be flown…VFR: 500 FT above the highest obstacle within a radius of 150 M from the aircraft.
IFR: a level that is at least 1 000 FT above the highest obstacle located within 8 KM of the estimated position of the aircraft.
This makes it “easier” to proceed VFR in mountaneous terrain like we see here.
Sure but not in this specific example where you are 4nm out and landing.
I’m pretty sure the 4nm out is because the surroundings make it impossible to design an IAP procedure which brings you closer. The determining factor often is the impossibility to design a MAPt which takes all the legal OCAs in account.
But I’m no insider so I’m just guessing in this specific case.
airways wrote:
I’m pretty sure the 4nm out is because the surroundings make it impossible to design an IAP procedure which brings you closer. The determining factor often is the impossibility to design a MAPt which takes all the legal OCAs in account.But I’m no insider so I’m just guessing in this specific case.
I agree, but my point is because you have VFR flight vis requirements etc, it truly has to be a cloud break. If it isn’t clear below, you can’t continue VFR. Obviously even under IFR, it seems unlikely he could have continued.
I think they just want everybody to use the published visual circuit.
IME, the tower people are very proactive (that’s putting it politely) in making sure people are all flying the circuit. Maybe this is due to nimby complaints? On my last trip there I was departing on the same runway this guy was landing on, so I had to do a left turn, and I wanted to fly further out over the lake to give myself more distance to climb before getting stuck back in their circuit, before heading west up the canyon. I don’t know how they were watching me but I got told off. Then I got a contact on TCAS, right below me and also climbing at +1000fpm which was as fast as I could. After about a minute of wondering if I was going to hit the guy, he diverged. I never saw him, of course…
They probably also don’t want straight-in IFR traffic, which the tower cannot separate from circuit traffic.
Yes, and essentially the more you look at it, the procedure is not meant to be an instrument approach to the runway. It is an instrument approach but purely to get you below a layer into VMC conditions for a normal VFR arrival to the airport. It was clearly not meant to be used in conditions that prevailed at the time of the crash.
IFR is 2000ft above highest obstacle within 8km in mountainous areas, so yes VFR is more lenient than IFR. Whether or not that is safer is another question.
A “Visual Approach” is an IFR procedure, which must be requested by the pilot and agreed by the controller. I understand there is no ATC at this airport and therefore a “Visual Approach” is not permitted. So if you are IFR at the MDA or DA (if it is a CDFA) and at the MApt and you cannot see and maintain visual contact with the runway you carry out a missed approach, on the G1000 that means pressing the SUSP button which then automatically directs you to the first waypoint in the Missed approach procedure. If you are on AP and NAV it will do the work for you.
If you are arriving IFR and decide that a VFR approach is possible (As I understand it that would not have been possible in this case) you can cancel your IFR flight plan and arrive and land VFR (obeying all visual flight rules for the airspace and not special vfr).
If you arrive IFR and can see the runway at MDA/DA before the missed approach point (in this case you would be at a high MDA/DA) and if you have a reasonable chance of maintaining visual all the way for MDA/DA to the runway, then you continue and land as you would normally do at the end of an IFR flight. On the ground you should then immediately contact the appropriate authority to close your flight plan.
I don’t think this particular airport is any more complicated than many others from an IFR point of view other than one would need to add the terrain threats and the length of the runway to the TEM section of your pre flight planning.
I don’t know what went wrong in this particular sad accident, all we do know is that the weather was not good,(perhaps below minimums) he had an aircraft which, all working as it should, would have been able to follow the IAP and the MAP automatically at the touch of a button, so to speak, I understand from posts here that he was qualified to do such a procedure, yet he flew into the side of a mountain at the end of the runway. Am I missing any FACTS? If not we should be clear thst we are only speculating.
