gallois wrote:
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).
I am not sure I made my point well enough. It seems that here, you cannot land off the approach and you must proceed VFR. In practice I am sure people treat it as a normal approach ie you either see the runway or not, but it actually isn’t IMHO. It is important as if you proceed beyond the MAPt, you are VFR and should you not be able to land, you need to be able to go around and remain in VMC. Earlier in the thread, I discussed the missed approach but it is increasingly clear that you are never meant to use that once you have passed the MAPt and continued.
I wonder what you are supposed to do if you lose visual references after initially being visual at the MAPt.
You are stuffed. Your best option then is to do something dodgy like using a topo GPS map to fly to the airport and then do a sharp left over the lake and into the canyon towards Salzburg.
I think the only way to fly this is to be visual with the airport at the MAPt and be sure there is no lingering IMC in between. That may not be possible from that far back if it is a bit hazy. And it was hazy as hell that week (I was trying to ski not far away, and at times could see only in front of my feet, with vis rising to a few miles briefly and then back again).
Assuming the stipulation that IFR is cancelled at the MAPt, you are not authorised to commence the missed approach and climb back up, which is ridiculous. Although in reality nobody cares what you do in the mountains and nobody can see you anyway until you are above the peaks. I have never managed to get an IFR clearance until well past that point, on a departure.
You need to be more than just “visual with the field”. You really need to fly under the visual flight rules, who are more restricting than just visual.
When you are under VFR, you can go missed, rejoin the traffic circuit and give it another try. If wx doesn’t allow it, this means you shouldn’t have descended below MDA in the first place.
Well… I think most pilots, becoming visual with the airport at the MAPt, will just carry on and land 
Most would argue this is the safest option by far. The same general argument is made w.r.t. go-arounds generally, and I agree with it.
Legal VFR is nowadays 1500m vis which is pretty well a pea soup. At the 800ft MDH at Shoreham, in 1500m reported vis, I can only just see the runway.
So you could well be legal-VFR at the MAPt here and not see the airport.
What are you supposed to do then?
You could proceed, now that you are VFR 
until you see the airport. But if for whatever reason you cannot land there, you are trapped under the cloudbase, which could be as low at the MAPt height, and that is not (?) high enough to escape out of there using any of the 3 options
All three of these will put you back into IMC and potentially icing conditions.
You do get stuffed when you can’t find the runway after becoming visual and it is hard to have a sensible plan B when you are lost, it is the reason why an offset cloudbreak on decent cloudbase but reduced vis is tougher than straight-in approach on tight minima
Imagine that with mountains are around, the natural reflex of climbing to MSA from the wrong point/heading will probably kill you
The Jepessen chart shows it as a CDFA, so dive and drive does not apply. The requirement for the runway environment to be identified – in effect better than 5SM visibility at MApt and approach lights identified, is required before proceeding beyond DA, if not go around at DA and follow missed approach.
The earlier chart posted is less clear.
There is no provision for a circling approach and no criteria, if the runway environment is lost after DA then you need to go missed, intercepting and carrying out the missed approach. You would then report to Innsbruck you were going missed, I do not see a need for a new clearance.
Saying that minimum vis for VFR is 1500m is pretty much “bending the rules”.
You still need 5km in class G, except at speeds of 140 KIAS or less to give adequate opportunity to observe other traffic or any obstacles in time to avoid collision; or in circumstances in which the probability of encounters with other traffic would normally be low, e.g. in areas of low volume traffic and for aerial work at low levels. And that’s only when you are already below 1000’ AGL.
At the Mapt, this guy needed 5km to be legal.
This is the whole Jepp chart
I am having difficulty seeing that you are required to be visual with the runway at MAPt, although that may be implicit.
if the runway environment is lost after DA then you need to go missed, intercepting and carrying out the missed approach
However, by then you have lost some distance for climbing, so you possibly won’t meet the climb criteria for the missed approach.
You basically need to be very sure that there aren’t any clouds lingering around which could interrupt the visual contact with the airport, after you initially acquired it.
I am having difficulty seeing that you are required to be visual with the runway at MAPt
It doesn’t say that. It says you need to be VFR. So upon arriving at the mapt, you conclude you have a min flight vis of 5km and are clear of clouds by 1000’/1500m or you go missed.
RobertL18C wrote:
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?
The quote was in reply to your comment that you’ve never heard of the concept of visual approach. It did not intend to relate to CDFA or actions at DA.
