Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscured

wheelsup

wheelsup

Well-Known Member
Names and places have been changed to protect the innocent, and this is all purely hypothetical.

Let's say you have runway 18-36. Both have ILS's but 18's is OTS.

Wx is calling scat003 3sm

You shoot ILS-36 2x, weather is way below mins, even going to 100' above the TDZ. Must be handflown due to the GS being very rocky.

You can see runway 18 clearly from up in the air, and see that the obscuration is only over the approach end of runway 36 and about 1/4 of the way down it. Legally, can you do the visual to 18? Tower is encouraging you to take it.

Concerns are:

legality
going around and not being able to maintain clear of clouds on the go
no one else is doing it, everyone else is diverting
 
Legality aside, ain't worth it -- I'm diverting.


Legality debate, commence...
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

weather is reporting VFR and if you can land 18 wind permitting it's legal.
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

wheelsup said:
You shoot ILS-36 2x, weather is way below mins, even going to 100' above the TDZ. Must be handflown due to the GS being very rocky.

You can see runway 18 clearly from up in the air, and see that the obscuration is only over the approach end of runway 36 and about 1/4 of the way down it. Legally, can you do the visual to 18? Tower is encouraging you to take it.

Concerns are:

legality
going around and not being able to maintain clear of clouds on the go
no one else is doing it, everyone else is diverting
Click to expand...

A visual approach is an instrument approach, it's not like you're cancelling your IFR. If at any point you have to go missed/go around, go missed and head to the alternate. That's my opinion and I'm not sure how this would work for 121 since I don't do that stuff.
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

Isn't flight visibility controlling on the visual?
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

I wouldn't take it unless it's a REALLY long runway and the restricted visibility is just on the arrival end (of the ILS runway). I damn near ran off the side of a runway when I was young and stupid (ok, last year) because I took a visual approach and ran into a fog bank sitting on the other end of a runway that had no center line lights.
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

BobDDuck said:
I wouldn't take it unless it's a REALLY long runway and the restricted visibility is just on the arrival end (of the ILS runway). I damn near ran off the side of a runway when I was young and stupid (ok, last year) because I took a visual approach and ran into a fog bank sitting on the other end of a runway that had no center line lights.
Click to expand...
Good to know and something else to think about! For the sake of discussion, let's pretend that the runway is as described, long, with CL lights, etc. So going around/balked and hitting clouds, probably out of the equation. I can see how that would be perfectly safe, especially say in CLT.

Still wondering, if the FAA would see that as legal or not.

Also, on the go-around, if you happen to hit clouds, what would you do? Well, I know what we'd doing, we'd climb on runway heading for about 1-2 secs till we pop back out. No biggie. But let's say there is a cloud wall. You contact the tower on the go and they tell you what to do I guess. All just seems kinda "from the hip". And to combine this was up in the "hills" at night.
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

wheelsup said:
Names and places have been changed to protect the innocent, and this is all purely hypothetical.

Let's say you have runway 18-36. Both have ILS's but 18's is OTS.

Wx is calling scat003 3sm

You shoot ILS-36 2x, weather is way below mins, even going to 100' above the TDZ. Must be handflown due to the GS being very rocky.

You can see runway 18 clearly from up in the air, and see that the obscuration is only over the approach end of runway 36 and about 1/4 of the way down it. Legally, can you do the visual to 18? Tower is encouraging you to take it.

Concerns are:

legality
going around and not being able to maintain clear of clouds on the go
no one else is doing it, everyone else is diverting
Click to expand...

Why not just do the RNAV 18 if you can see 18 from the air, wouldn't you be covered on go arounds/missed?
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

ryan1234 said:
Why not just do the RNAV 18 if you can see 18 from the air, wouldn't you be covered on go arounds/missed?
Click to expand...

His Opsspecs might not approve RNAV approaches, but your point is well-taken and could be make with another type of non-precision.

Wheels: this has happened several times in "your neck of the woods" - most crews declared an emergency to cover their bases and never heard anything about it.
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

I can not find anything in C77 (OPspec for terminal vfr operations) that says you can't do it...The wx is you mentioned is reported is greater than 3sm and 1000' cieling, you're under control of an atc facility, you have the runway in sight, and as long as you can maintain the proper cloud clearance requirements....I see no legal problem with it.

I"d take it as long as it appeared the fog bank at the opposite end would not pose any issues in the roll out and a/c performance allowed. (Tailwind, etc)

I'd even venture to say that is possibly the safer option, no need for the approach to minimums and the low altitude go-around. Keep the gas in the tanks just in case the fog bank blows over the rest of the airport while your shooting the visual.
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

How about requesting a contact approach? Is that allowed by your company?
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

C150J said:
His Opsspecs might not approve RNAV approaches, but your point is well-taken and could be make with another type of non-precision.

Wheels: this has happened several times in "your neck of the woods" - most crews declared an emergency to cover their bases and never heard anything about it.
Click to expand...
If fuel was a concern that would be a good option, although we had enough gas to shoot 2x approaches and still go back to PHL (listed as alt). Something to think about in the future though.

Looking at it, the only other legal approach is an NDB-A that we could've done. According to our my certificate, "VMC only" (on a side note, I wonder what that really means just thinking about it, because all circling approaches must be done in VMC), and our FOM, the ceiling and vis requirement is 1000' and 3sm. Legally, the tower was reporting 300 scat and 3 sm so we had that. Next, you must keep the runway in view when conducting a circling approach. By that I read the whole runway, so I don't believe that would've been an option anyway, due to you approaching from the south and when you would circle you would not have any view of the runway until you were about halfway in your downwind. If you don't see the runway you can't start your circle. Perhaps worth a try though, and something to keep in the bag. I didn't think of it at the time, but I don't believe it would've been an option at that time anyway.
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

BlueMoon said:
I can not find anything in C77 (OPspec for terminal vfr operations) that says you can't do it...The wx is you mentioned is reported is greater than 3sm and 1000' cieling, you're under control of an atc facility, you have the runway in sight, and as long as you can maintain the proper cloud clearance requirements....I see no legal problem with it.

I"d take it as long as it appeared the fog bank at the opposite end would not pose any issues in the roll out and a/c performance allowed. (Tailwind, etc)

I'd even venture to say that is possibly the safer option, no need for the approach to minimums and the low altitude go-around. Keep the gas in the tanks just in case the fog bank blows over the rest of the airport while your shooting the visual.
Click to expand...

Well I believe you don't even need to meet cloud clearance requirements because a visual approach is still an IFR procedure, so just clear of clouds, correct? But that is my issue, on the go-around could I reasonably expect to remain clear of clouds? I'm not sure I could argue that. It would be for just a few seconds if I did in fact hit them, but still...although a go-around is not part of the visual approach procedure, so I suppose one could ask for "in the event of a go-around, what are the missed instructions" from tower. That might cover your basis, and give you a real good leg to stand on if anything or anyone were watching.

I believe we could've landed safely however, just trying to find a way to make this legal and smart.
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

wheelsup said:
Well I believe you don't even need to meet cloud clearance requirements because a visual approach is still an IFR procedure, so just clear of clouds, correct? But that is my issue, on the go-around could I reasonably expect to remain clear of clouds? I'm not sure I could argue that. It would be for just a few seconds if I did in fact hit them, but still...although a go-around is not part of the visual approach procedure, so I suppose one could ask for "in the event of a go-around, what are the missed instructions" from tower. That might cover your basis, and give you a real good leg to stand on if anything or anyone were watching.

I believe we could've landed safely however, just trying to find a way to make this legal and smart.
Click to expand...

You still need to meet the cloud clearance requirements (underlined from c-77 below). Also, no place does it specify that you have to remain clear of clouds in the event of a missed approach, as you said you are still on an IFR procedure. I look at it this way if you go missed, you're canceling your visual approach clearance, just like if the tower canceled your approach clearance and sent you around. Since a visual has no published MAP, you have to obtain an amended clearance from ATC anyway. Just as if you would, if on a visual and lost contact with the runway.

I do see one issue with regard to C-77 the area I bolded specifically states, you must maintain visual contact with the runway throughout the approach AND landing. That there makes me start to doubt the legality of this, if you were unable to come to a stop before entering the fog bank.

From C-77
4) For a visual approach without a CVFP - The flightcrew must be able to establish and maintain
visual contact with the airport or maintain visual contact with the traffic to be followed as directed by ATC.
In addition, the following provisions and weather conditions at the airport during the approach must be
met:
(a) Reported visibility must be as specified in Section 91.155, but not lower than a visibility of
three miles and reported ceiling must be 1,000 feet or greater, or
(b) When in the terminal area with the reported visibility not lower than three miles and ceiling
not reported, the flightcrew may continue to a landing if the runway of intended landing is in sight and the
flightcrew can maintain visual contact with the runway throughout the approach and landing, and
(c) Ceiling and cloud clearance must be as such to allow the flightcrew to maintain the minimum
altitudes prescribed in Section 91.129, 91.130, or 91.131, as applicable for the airspace class in which the
flight is operated.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Can you accept a visual on a R/W with other side obscure

BlueMoon said:
You still need to meet the cloud clearance requirements (underlined from c-77 below). Also, no place does it specify that you have to remain clear of clouds in the event of a missed approach, as you said you are still on an IFR procedure. I look at it this way if you go missed, you're canceling your visual approach clearance, just like if the tower canceled your approach clearance and sent you around. Since a visual has no published MAP, you have to obtain an amended clearance from ATC anyway. Just as if you would, if on a visual and lost contact with the runway.

I do see one issue with regard to C-77 the area I bolded specifically states, you must maintain visual contact with the runway throughout the approach AND landing. That there makes me start to doubt the legality of this, if you were unable to come to a stop before entering the fog bank.
Click to expand...
The underlined deals with B, C, and D airspace though, and requirements to operate in it.

Looking at my opsspecs C077, B. (3) is where it says you must maintain cloud clearance requirements (91.155), so it's definitely in there.

Interesting point about approach and landing, I see where that would be an issue. So good chance it is not legal then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top