My views concern pure ifr approaches where the pilot will not request a visual approach. In the latter case the pilot will descend according to the rules of the air etc. If the pilot requests to descend earlier and this puts him in an area where other services are provided, eg G airspace, he must be informed by atc that he will fly in that environment and, eg, no separatiom or tr. Info will be provided there. The pilot can of course descend to the msa by himself when cleared for the approach, but if the atco wants to do some kind of separation this may pose a problem, as the atco may think that you have been executing the approach as shown in the plate. But it's safe. Also i guess that the ifr approaches are designed taking other factors into account as well, eg a/g communication availability.
Dare I ask why you would maintain MSA +1000/2000?
You are completely right re the Jepp plate 25nm circle - that is the MSA you can fly at.
I just get a bit fuzzy because of issues like this (see page 20 of the PDF).
In IFR, and outside the 25nm circle, the pilot will be flying with some kind of enroute chart (or no enroute chart at all if you are "adequately trendy") and the MSA depiction on those is usually less than obvious, as well as not being useful because e.g. the SSA figure covers such a huge area.
So one might well use a VFR chart for that purpose if one really needs to be sure of the obstacle clearance. That's what I do, and I have them running as a GPS moving map, but most pilots won't have that because it is difficult to get that data legally.
But how to watch the MSA in the vicinity of an airport is another topic... In "classical IFR" (e.g. British Airways) it "just works" because you are in CAS or at FL300+ all the time, etc. For light GA it is all different which is why people get killed when e.g. waiting for IFR clearances.
Plus some countries (south west Europe) have appallingly bad ATC, who are only just hanging in there on their ICAO English. People have been vectored into terrain often enough.
Also i guess that the ifr approaches are designed taking other factors into account as well, eg a/g communication availability.
That's an interesting one. I might think Jepp just copy the AIP charts, but clearly they don't just do that. I recall seeing one for Albenga (Italy) where the AIP plate had a bizzare ambiguity on the descent profile, which Jepp clarified.
To illustrate the procedure, I've taken an airport with an instrument approach but no arrival in a mountainous region.
You would fly to the HGD VOR and depending where you're coming from, descend to the MSA given for your sector in the circle in the top right corner. Then you enter the hold, descend to 4000ft and execute the procedure. The altitude at which you pass the HGD VOR and commence the holding entry would be no lower than what's given in the MSA diagram.
tomjnx in a visual approach the separation from other traffic is not by default your responsibility. The visual part of a visual approach is for your separation from terrain, not traffic. You are still an ifr controlled flight, remember. This is written clearly in the Docs.
You would fly to the HGD VOR and depending where you're coming from, descend to the MSA given for your sector in the circle in the top right corner. Then you enter the hold, descend to 4000ft and execute the procedure. The altitude at which you pass the HGD VOR and commence the holding entry would be no lower than what's given in the MSA diagram.
I agree 100%
You are still an ifr controlled flight
There is much confusion about this among private pilots.
A Visual Approach is an IFR procedure - as you say.
Sometimes this gets confused into an "VFR Approach" which as far as I can tell doesn't exist. If you want to fly VFR then you have to cancel IFR formally. Usually that is a stupid idea, unless the place is devoid of any traffic.
This is written clearly in the Docs.
Which docs? PANS ATM 6.5?
You are right that in a visual approach, ATC should still provide separation from other IFR flights, unless you report the previous aircraft in sight, and they tell you to follow it.
There are lots of IFR procedures which require you to maintain visual separation from other aircraft, such as IFR in any airspace above class C (i.e. D, E, F and G), and SOIA approaches. This is also "cleary written in the Docs".
PANS ATM 6.5.4.3 also clearly implies that the entire procedure needs not be followed if cleared for a visual approach
Which docs? PANS ATM 6.5?
Yes.
You are right that in a visual approach, ATC should still provide separation from other IFR flights, unless you report the previous aircraft in sight and they tell you to follow it.
The Doc says this only for successive visual approaches. If the preceding is not executing a visual approach then the no 2 cannot be cleared for a visual approach maintaining own separation from the preceding.
Also, Peter, take a look at this:
6.5.2.4 DESCENT BELOW LEVELS SPECIFIED IN A STAR
Note.— See also 11.4.2.6.2.5.
When an arriving aircraft on a STAR is cleared to descend to a level lower than the level or the level(s) specified in a
STAR, the aircraft shall follow the published vertical profile of a STAR, unless such restrictions are explicitly cancelled
by ATC. Published minimum levels based on terrain clearance shall always be applied.
[edited for text formatting... for a quote, prefix the paragraph with a > and to force a line break without a blank line, put 2 spaces at the end of the previous para - see Tips - Peter]
Also, tomjnx, the "This is written clearly in the Docs." phrase that I wrote was not implying anything for you personally, I hope there is not any misunderstanding there :)
This may not apply to Europe, but in the USA, the MSA may only be used in an emergency and there is absolutely no authority to descend to the MSA except in a case of emergency. There was a famous crash in the USA, TWA 714 descended into terrain on an approach into Dulles as they had been cleared for the approach (see Ever since then, ATC approach clearance instructions have been changed to include an altitude that is the minimum altitude permitted until on an established portion of the approach procedure which includes course, distance, and minimum altitude.
From FAA Order 7110.65 (this is the controller bible):
b. For aircraft operating on unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft is:
Established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure. EXAMPLE: Aircraft 1: The aircraft is established on a segment of a published route at 5,000 feet. “Cleared VOR Runway Three Four Approach.”
Assigned an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.
Aircraft 2: The aircraft is inbound to the VOR on an unpublished direct route at 7,000 feet. The minimum IFR altitude for IFR operations (14 CFR Section 91.177) along this flight path to the VOR is 5,000 feet. “Cross the Redding VOR at or above five thousand, cleared VOR Runway Three Four Approach.”
NOTE 1. The altitude assigned must assure IFR obstruction clearance from the point at which the approach clearance is issued until established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.
6.5.2.4 DESCENT BELOW LEVELS SPECIFIED IN A STAR
But when you're in a visual approach, you're past the STAR stage, aren't you?
Furthermore, when you're short-cutting the procedure, the minimum levels associated to parts of that procedure don't make much sense?
