achimha wrote:
…due to some [censored] who insisted on…
Sometimes I am one of these censoredes. As an instrument instructor you are in some kind of dilemma here. Your client pays a lot of money for IFR training time and his training will only be complete once the required number of minutes is done. Cancelling IFR on final approach (which at some fields is the only way to get another departure out ahead of you) will “steal” several minutes of instrument time from the student – unless one logs it as IFR time nonetheless, thereby – legally – committing forgery of the documentation. Which is a felony around here. The chances of getting caught are slim but not zero as some " Beauftragter für Luftaufsicht " or ramp inspector might ask you to show him your paperwork after landing.
As an instrument instructor, you very well know to not practise at the wrong airfields and/or at the wrong time of day. I think that’s the key here.
At a very busy airfield (yesterday it was Portoroz LJPZ), my view is that I expect everybody (allowed/capable) to perform visual procedures or cancel IFR and not make the rest of the crowd suffer for lack of proper planning as to where and when perform training. LJPZ is a good example because the procedures block the aerodrome for a long time.
I think the OP is referring to a visual approach as an IFR procedure rather than a VFR circuit to land. I’ve often done both, the VFR circuit to land means cancelling IFR if you are on a FP. The IFR visual approach can be very useful, when I’ve requested them I’ll often get the response “cleared for a visual approach RWY XX, report 4 dme”. This leaves you free to plan your own descent profile, you often don’t then need to descend and level off at platform altitude some distance from the field (and thump along in thermalling air). Obviously you can still use ILS and/or PAPIs to maintain the profile.
This works well at small airports in France where regional ACC hand you over to a radar equipped tower while still fairly high. Clearly all this works well in summer with frequent CAVOK conditions. If the cloudbase is below platform altitude then converting to a visual IFR approach is pointless if you are already flying the IAP.
achimha wrote:
At a very busy airfield (yesterday it was Portoroz LJPZ), my view is that I expect everybody (allowed/capable) to perform visual procedures or cancel IFR and not make the rest of the crowd suffer for lack of proper planning as to where and when perform training. LJPZ is a good example because the procedures block the aerodrome for a long time.
Well I did a visual in there two weeks ago. RADAR handed me over at FL120 over the field. But it would have been a circling approach anyway on the IAP.
achimha wrote:
As an instrument instructor, you very well know to not practise at the wrong airfields and/or at the wrong time of day.
Well, we practise a lot at Schwäbisch Hall for example, and considering how busy they are this time of the year it will always be the “wrong time of day” to fly there for instrument training. Same at my home base where you will always hold an airliner on the ground for some time or slow him on approach when you do IAPs with a light plane. I wouldn’t be able to do my job if I would only fly in winter, at night or in real bad weather… and anyway I have been held on the ground myself a lot by others who learnt to fly. I don’t call them censoreds for that.
This looks more like impractical ATC procedures (or incompetent ATC) to me – whether an aircraft is on the ILS or on a visual long final should make no difference to whether they can squeeze in a departure…
Cobalt wrote:
This looks more like impractical ATC procedures (or incompetent ATC) to me – whether an aircraft is on the ILS or on a visual long final should make no difference to whether they can squeeze in a departure…
That’s a requirement for uncontrolled airfields with instrument procedures around here. They can only have one IFR movement at one time inside their airspace (which is called RMZ now). A VFR departure will not be held on the ground while I perform my training approach, nor will VFR traffic in the pattern be affected by that. Just other aircraft departing or arriving on instrument flight plans.
Alexis wrote:
well, of course I understand, but “practice” is the keyword. And when you need practice (IAP, avionics, procedures) and you are flying on an IFR FPL (filed by aR ;-) then you cannot think about some guy in a Cessna waiting for 10 minutes. You know how much training it takes to fly IAPs in bad weather safely, and as a beginner you HAVE to practice the stuff, no matter how nice the weather is.
I think there is a difference – if you are training you cant really do much about when and where, but if you are practising I suspect their are enough days when the weather is poor. Certainly in the UK many airports will either tell you that they are out of training slots (so that is that) or will not accept you unless you have booked a training slot when the weather is CAVOK.
There are also plenty of places around without radar (and I guess there will be more) and with a procedure.
Also without any IFR procedural arrivals many towers will just have othe one controller on duty – dont you still need two for a procedural arrival? If so I get the impression pulling someone off their break for an unplanned procedural arrival in conditions that dont warrant does not go down well.
Flying yesterday it was interesting at three of the larger regional airports I passed handling commercial traffic the pilots were asking for visual approaches – I rather think they like the opportunity when conditions are this good!
Oh and I expect if you have in mind to make life easier for you, because you are a bit out of sorts with orientating yourself at a more complicated airport and fancy have the controller do the work for you with vectors, then I suspect it would not do any harm to brush up those skills a little as well ;-)
Airborne_Again wrote:
The only visibility requirement is that the RVR is at least 800 m.
Interesting. In the US, a visual approach requires three mile visibility and a 1000 foot ceiling at the airport. The airport or the preceding aircraft must be in sight.
NCYankee wrote:
In the US, a visual approach requires three mile visibility and a 1000 foot ceiling at the airport. The airport or the preceding aircraft must be in sight.
But you have a “contact approach” (1 SM, clear of clouds), don’t you?
I think one of the reasons for the low RVR 800 m limit on the visual approach is the approach ban we have in Europe, which isn’t applicable to Part 91 in the US. It’s not unknown for shallow fog to cause a low RVR but with the airport clearly visible in a way that permits a visual approach.
