What constitutes a visual approach?

5 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   RM on May 11, 2011

   Sounds good to me. Boils down to forward flight visibility of the pilot. The only way to know forward visibility is if you were in the cockpit. you maintained sight of the airport at all times. Weather reporting can play tricks sometimes if it’s not operating correctly. What class airspace were you in? Google NASA report if you think you have violated a reg. You have ten days to file it. It will help in keeping you out of trouble

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   Rusty Allen on May 11, 2011

   Humm, I am not a CFII but a request for a “contact approach” might have been a better fit. Contact approaches have to be requested by the pilot. With a contact approach you are still IFR, 1 mile/Clear-of-cloud is the weather restrictions. I have pasted in the AIM text.

   AIM 5-5-3. Contact Approach
   a. Pilot.
   1. Must request a contact approach and makes it in lieu of a standard or special instrument approach.
   2. By requesting the contact approach, indicates that the flight is operating clear of clouds, has at least one mile flight visibility, and reasonably expects to continue to the destination airport in those conditions.
   3. Assumes responsibility for obstruction clearance while conducting a contact approach.
   4. Advises ATC immediately if unable to continue the contact approach or if encounters less than 1 mile flight visibility.
   5. Is aware that if radar service is being received, it may be automatically terminated when told to contact the tower.

    

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

3. 
   

   
   

   Kent Shook on May 11, 2011

   Rusty,
    
   I disagree – A contact approach is much the same as a visual approach but is used when you can’t see the airport. Contact approaches are not well understood by most pilots, and ATC can’t assign you one (you have to specifically ask for it). I’ve never even heard of anybody using one, and the one time where I could have used it I didn’t think of it either and simply continued toward the IAF for a different approach until I could see the airport and got the visual.
    
   Robert,
    
   Don’t worry about it. Flight visibility is what’s important. If you had the proper flight visibility, you’re OK. The ASOS/AWOS devices aren’t always the most accurate things in the world. It’d be worth a call to the airport manager to let them know of the discrepancy, though.
    

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

4. 
   

   
   

   MG on May 17, 2011

   Be careful here Robert.First and foremost, yes you violated the FAR by entering controlled airspace that was REPORTED below VFR minimums without a clearance. Rusty is right on the mark here with the contact approach, but you could’ve requested Special VFR as well. Since you were on an IFR flight plan and there were no conflicts –  I wouldn’t worry about the FAA. You mis-conception is widespread among pilots and this is, I’m sure, quite common! If you’re really paranoid, follow RM’s advice and file a NASA ARS report here:    http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.htmlAs to inflight visibility, there seems to be some confusion. NOWHERE in the FAR is there an exception that allows any pilot [except in an emergency] to over-ride authoritive weather reporting and enter and/or operate in controlled airspace VFR in reported IMC conditions. The ONLY discretion that I’m aware of concerning inflight visibility is that you may initiate [Pt91 only] or continue [Pt135,121 – inside the FAF only] an approach AND land if you have minimums based on inflight visibilty, regardless of the reported or prevailing visibility.What is a contact approach? It’s an IFR procedure that allows a pilot to deviate, both horizontally and vertically, from a published IAP provided he has and can maintain 1mi visibility and Clear of Clouds.There’s much confusion concerning contact clearances and Special VFR. They both have the same Weather mins [1mi & clear of clouds] and NEITHER require an airport to be in sight, but the contact approach has some decided advantages:

   It’s an IFR clearance and if things don’t go as planned [ie unable to maintain 1CoC] you always have the option to execute the Missed Approach and regroup. Under SVFR you MUST mainatain 1CoC.
   A contact approach, being an IFR procedure, has a higher priority than SVFR and you’re more likely to get it faster [especially if you’re already IFR and going to do the approach anyway]. SVFR has the lowest prioity [after ALL conflicting IFR has been cleared] and there may be significant delays in getting a clearance.

   Contact approaches can be very handy. Suppose, as per above that your enroute arrival is opposite the airport from the approach side. For example, you’re coming in from the North, but the facility and PT is located south of the field. Instead of overflying the field and executing the entire approach, you request a contact approach, descend, enter the pattern, theoretically intercept the final approach course [at any altitude desired], and land. No muss;No Fuss.It is also quite useful when the airspace at your destination is controlled by another tower. Hayward [HWD] and Oakland,CA [OAK] is a prime example. When HWD tower is closed, OAK weather controls the airspace. Unfortunately, the OAK weather is reported for Runway 29 [which has a Cat 3 ILS] and is about 50 feet from San Francisco Bay. Thus OAK may be reporting well below VMC minimums, but Hayward (and the GA side of OAK) may well be VMC – a perfect ocassion to use a contact approach to HWD and avoid the 16 mile run out to Sunol [the IAF] for the entire approach. No muss;No Fuss and perfectly legal.
   Hope this clears some things up for you.

   0 Votes 1 Votes  1 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   MG on May 17, 2011

   Try this again with better formatting (I hope)
   Be careful here Robert.
    
   First and foremost, yes you violated the FAR by entering controlled airspace that was REPORTED below VFR minimums without a clearance. Rusty is right on the mark here with the contact approach, but you could’ve requested Special VFR as well. Since you were on an IFR flight plan and there were no conflicts –  I wouldn’t worry about the FAA. You mis-conception is widespread among pilots and this is, I’m sure, quite common! If you’re really paranoid, follow RM’s advice and file a NASA ARS report here:    http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/report/electronic.html
    
   As to inflight visibility, there seems to be some confusion. NOWHERE in the FAR is there an exception that allows any pilot [except in an emergency] to over-ride authoritive weather reporting and enter and/or operate in controlled airspace VFR in reported IMC conditions. The ONLY discretion that I’m aware of concerning inflight visibility is that you may initiate [Pt91 only] or continue [Pt135,121 – inside the FAF only] an approach AND land if you have minimums based on inflight visibilty, regardless of the reported or prevailing visibility.
    
   What is a contact approach? It’s an IFR procedure that allows a pilot to deviate, both horizontally and vertically, from a published IAP provided he has and can maintain 1mi visibility and Clear of Clouds.
    
   There’s much confusion concerning contact clearances and Special VFR. They both have the same Weather mins [1mi & clear of clouds] and NEITHER require an airport to be in sight, but the contact approach has some decided advantages:
    
   1.    It’s an IFR clearance and if things don’t go as planned [ie unable to maintain 1CoC] you always have the option to execute the Missed Approach and regroup. Under SVFR you MUST mainatain 1CoC.
    
   2.    A contact approach, being an IFR procedure, has a higher priority than SVFR and you’re more likely to get it faster [especially if you’re already IFR and going to do the approach anyway]. SVFR has the lowest prioity [after ALL conflicting IFR has been cleared] and there may be significant delays in getting a clearance.
    
   Contact approaches can be very handy. Suppose, as per above that your enroute arrival is opposite the airport from the approach side. For example, you’re coming in from the North, but the facility and PT is located south of the field. Instead of overflying the field and executing the entire approach, you request a contact approach, descend, enter the pattern, theoretically intercept the final approach course [at any altitude desired], and land. No muss;No Fuss.
    
   It is also quite useful when the airspace at your destination is controlled by another tower. Hayward [HWD] and Oakland,CA [OAK] is a prime example. When HWD tower is closed, OAK weather controls the airspace. Unfortunately, the OAK weather is reported for Runway 29 [which has a Cat 3 ILS] and is about 50 feet from San Francisco Bay. Thus OAK may be reporting well below VMC minimums, but Hayward (and the GA side of OAK) may well be VMC – a perfect ocassion to use a contact approach to HWD and avoid the 16 mile run out to Sunol [the IAF] for the entire approach. No muss;No Fuss and perfectly legal.
    
   Hope this clears some things up for you.

   0 Votes 1 Votes  1 Votes