Practice IFR approach?

[Goldy]

Crashed- Back to the OP....I never ask for a special VFR, I tell the tower I am inbound special VFR and describe my landing intentions from there. The only reason they would deny that request, is for separation from other traffic, as the regs only allow one aircraft under Special VFR rules in the airspace at a time. As soon as any other Special VFR traffic clears you will get your clearance. My experience has been you cannot dance around, you have to tell them your intentions and let ATC approve or modify your request. The stuff I hear on the radio, even from long time pilots, trying to get into or out of airports in low vis always brings a chuckle. As they are flying in circles wondering what to do, I announce my intentions and land.

 

I love all this IFR banter but I wondered what others have experienced during SVFR conditions?

 

Crashed- what are you doing flying into SMX anyway?

[avbug]

It sounded like he was talking about a loop hole in the ATC system where, in the event you are denied the IFR approach to an airport (due to visibility) and you still would like to shoot the approach and land, then you could ask for a practice approach (which ATC would allow) and if you just happen to see the runway at your MAP, let ATC know and request permission to land.

 

You misunderstood your instructor, or your instructor didn't understand the national airspace system.

 

Think about it:

 

"Valhalla Approach, November Xray Tango Tunafish Ringworm request ILS 22L."

 

"November Xray Tango Tunafish Ringworm, ILS 22L unavailable."

 

"Valhalla Approach, November Xray Tango Tunafish Ringworm, can we practice the approach, then?"

 

"November Tunafish Ringworm, Valhalla Approach, you want to practice an approach which isn't available?"

 

"Vahalla, November Ringworm, yeah, that's right, if you can't clear us for the approach, can we go practice what's not available and that for which you can't clear us?"

 

"Ah, no, November Tunafish Ringworm, I can't clear you to practice an approach that isn't available, and can't clear you to practice an approach for which I can't clear you. Is that clear?"

 

You see the point.

 

Under Part 91, when flying a procedure, you do not have a requirement to have weather reporting above minimums, generally speaking. It's not uncommon, depending on the meteorological conditions, to have a weather report below minimums, and to still have adequate visual reference to land. Therefore, is one is able to fly the approach to have a look, one may see the runway environment, or the runway lead-in lights, and be able to continue the approach to a landing. Part 135 and 121 operators don't have this option; the weather must be above minimums before starting the approach (but they may continue the approach if the weather goes below minimums once they are established on the procedure, inbound, inside of the final approach fix).

 

You may fly the procedure, if it's available and a clearance can be received, and you may land if you find you have adequate visual reference upon arrival at the procedure minimum altitude. If you do so, you may be required to explain yourself in the event the FAA takes issue with your actions. This will seldom happen unless something else occurs during the procedure which causes the FAA to take a look; an incident, a separation issue, or you blow the procedure and cause something to draw attention to your actions.

 

You must also remember that if the weather is low enough that completion of the approach is in question when you begin, do you really want to squander your fuel under conditions that won't get you down, or do you want to spend it getting to a place where you can complete an approach and get down. The time and fuel it takes to fly the procedure, then the missed procedure could be better used on your behalf going to your alternate and flying the procedure there. It's one thing to be fat on gas and fly a procedure from which you cant land, on a lark; it's another to realize that you're running low on fuel and options, and it's because you didn't take the chance to go somewhere when you still had the fuel to do so.

 

I love all this IFR banter but I wondered what others have experienced during SVFR conditions?

 

I don't do special VFR, period. When the weather deteriorates, I do IFR, or don't do it at all.

 

The only reason they would deny that request, is for separation from other traffic, as the regs only allow one aircraft under Special VFR rules in the airspace at a time.

 

What makes you think this? It isn't true.

 

You should also bear in mind that SVFR traffic has second priority to IFR traffic.

 

When yo think you're blasting into reduced visibility with SVFR and suddenly find that the weather deteriorates a half mile from the airport or a mile away, now you're no longer able to scud run in even special VFR conditions, and you're hosed. It's foolish. Do it IFR and be done with it.

 

A good article on SVFR from the Air Safety Foundation: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=5150

[helistar]

Alternate SVFR helicopter separation minima

may be established when warranted by the volume

and/or complexity of local helicopter operations.

Alternate SVFR helicopter separation minima shall

be established with an LOA with the helicopter

operator which shall specify, as a minimum, that

SVFR helicopters are to maintain visual reference to

the surface and adhere to the following aircraft

separation minima:

 

1. Between a SVFR helicopter and an arriving

or departing IFR aircraft:

 

(a) 1/2 mile. If the IFR aircraft is less than

1mile from the landing airport.

 

( 1 mile. If the IFR aircraft is 1 mile or

more from the airport.

 

2. 1 mile between SVFR helicopters. This

separation may be reduced to 200 feet if:

 

(a) Both helicopters are departing simultaneously

on courses that diverge by at least 30 degrees

 

and:

(1) The tower can determine this separation

by reference to surface markings; or

 

(2) One of the departing helicopters is

instructed to remain at least 200 feet from the other.

 

 

LOCAL OPERATIONS

a. Authorize local SVFR operations for a specified

period (series of landings and takeoffs, etc.) upon

request if the aircraft can be recalled when traffic or

weather conditions require. Where warranted, LOAs

may be consummated.

 

b. Control facilities may also authorize an FSS to

transmit SVFR clearances so that only one aircraft at

a time operates in the Class B, Class C, Class D, or

Class E surface areas unless pilots agree that they

will maintain visual separation with other aircraft

operating in the Class B, Class C, Class D, or ClassE

surface areas. Such authorization concerning visual

separation by pilots shall be contained in a LOA

between the control facility and the FSS.

 

PRIORITY

a. SVFR flights may be approved only if arriving

and departing IFR aircraft are not delayed.

 

EXAMPLE-

1. A SVFR aircraft has been cleared to enter a Class B,

Class C, Class D, or Class E surface area and subsequently

an IFR aircraft is ready to depart or is in position to begin

an approach. Less overall delay might accrue to the IFR

aircraft if the SVFR aircraft is allowed to proceed to the

airport and land, rather than leave, a Class B, Class C,

Class D, or Class E surface area or be repositioned to

provide IFR priority.

 

2. A SVFR aircraft is number one for takeoff and located

in such a position that the number two aircraft, an IFR

flight, cannot taxi past to gain access to the runway. Less

overall delay might accrue to the IFR aircraft by releasing

the SVFR departure rather than by having the aircraft taxi

down the runway to a turnoff point so the IFR aircraft could

be released first.

 

NOTE

The priority afforded IFR aircraft over SVFR aircraft is not

intended to be so rigidly applied that inefficient use of

airspace results. The controller has the prerogative of

permitting completion of a SVFR operation already in

progress when an IFR aircraft becomes a factor if better

overall efficiency will result.

[Gomer Pylot]

If an arriving aircraft reports weather conditions are

below his/her landing minima:

 

Did you miss that part? If the arriving aircraft does not report that weather conditions are below his/her landing minima, then the rest is moot.

 

I've been flying IFR a lot longer than you've been alive, and maybe longer than your daddy has been alive. Being in school does not make you an expert.

 

I've flown a number of approaches to closed runways. The runway and the approach are different facilities. This is a helicopter forum, and I was flying a helicopter, and had no need to use the closed runway.

 

The published mission of ATC is to expedite the flow of air traffic, and that's what most controllers do. Some get a swelled head and try to get into the cockpit. Those need to be weeded out. The only reason for denying or delaying an approach clearance should be if the controller is going to 'have a deal'. Controllers rightly don't want a deal, and obviously may delay an approach clearance to insure separation. But the clearance should be issued as soon as separation can be assured. That's their freaking job. Under Part 91, there are no minima in reality, and a pilot can fly the approach in any weather. Under Part 135 and Part 121, the minima are set by the company's ops specs, and can be lower or higher than the published minima. Helicopters can almost always reduce the published visibility by 1/2. The controller has no idea what the pilot's minima are in most cases, that's why the first line I posted is in the manual - the pilot should tell ATC whether or not he/she can initiate the approach with the current weather. If it's below his/her minima, then ATC should issue a clearance to wherever the pilot requests. The controller does not know the filed alternate, and the pilot is under no obligation to go to the filed alternate. Once again, alternate requirements are for preflight fuel planning purposes only, and once the aircraft takes off it is moot, and the pilot can go wherever he/she wants if unable to land at the destination.

[Gomer Pylot]

Back to the OP: Cancelling IFR and asking for a practice approach, when the weather is reported as IMC, can get you in trouble, depending on the situation. Flying VFR in IMC is not a good idea in any case, and may get you a violation, depending on the airspace, your altitude, and other factors. Just tell the controller what approach you want, and you should be cleared for it, with perhaps a delay due to separation issues. Under Part 91, you can take a look regardless of the reported weather. Not saying that's a great idea, just that you can.

[helistar]

You do realize the two examples I quoted are for two different scenarios and in two different sections of 7110.65... 1st~ Pilot reported weather minimums which your using and 2nd~ in which a controller sends the aircraft into holding due to the runway being closed due to weather, which is what your disputing....

 

In regards to the controller not understanding or knowing about minimums, your once again wrong... Unlike pilots who read the approach plates as needed, controllers commit to memory knowing every detail concerning their assigned airspace including published approaches and LOA's since they utilize this information daily in the performance of their assigned duties...

 

In regards to my daddy, he started flying in 1972, and a facility rated approach controller in 1978 and you started flying when? so rather than attempting to discredit me with your opinion...

 

Please provide reference documentation which clearly proves your point of view...

How about also showing everyone an approach plate that authorizes an instrument approach to a closed runway, since this is also one of your statements... I never seen one, however with my limited knowledge I guess it's possible, heck anythings possible, but I would have to see it to believe it....

 

fyi, I knew what the alternate is for, but wanted to know if you did...

[Gomer Pylot]

Again, runways are never closed due to weather. They may be closed for repairs, or because of obstructions (which may be caused by weather), but not for reported visibility/ceiling. It does not happen. ATC cannot close an airport or runway, that's done by airport management. And I still say ATC has no authority for denying an approach clearance simply because of weather.

 

And I started flying in 1968, fwiw.

[helistar]

Again, runways are never closed due to weather. They may be closed for obstructions (which may be caused by weather)

 

Now that's funny... But your entitled to your opinion...

 

Anyone else who has questions regarding this matter I would recommend reading the far/aim and 7110.65 for accurate information...

[crashed_05]

Back to the OP: Cancelling IFR and asking for a practice approach, when the weather is reported as IMC, can get you in trouble, depending on the situation. Flying VFR in IMC is not a good idea in any case, and may get you a violation, depending on the airspace, your altitude, and other factors. Just tell the controller what approach you want, and you should be cleared for it, with perhaps a delay due to separation issues. Under Part 91, you can take a look regardless of the reported weather. Not saying that's a great idea, just that you can.

 

I never mentioned canceling IFR. You can do a practice approach under IFR too.

[avbug]

Again, runways are never closed due to weather.

 

Again, you're incorrect.

 

Perhaps you haven't been around enough that you've seen this. I certainly have.

 

Weather is a reason for closing approaches to runways for numerous reasons. Windshear, crosswinds, tailwinds, obscuring phenomena, conflicting approaches due to weather (the Teterboro, Newark, Kennedy interface is an excellent example) are all reasons why an approach may not be available to a given runway. Traffic issues? No. Runway not available due to weather, yes.

 

A few years ago I was unable to obtain an arrival into the Phoenix metro area due to weather which, per ATC, had "closed the east half of the state." I was given vectors north and west, finally arriving on vectors to Skyharbor in some really bad weather. Phoenix features six runways; three landing east, and the same cement landing west. Only the procedures landing west were available, and the full procedures weren't an option because of weather on the procedure. Therefore, short vectors onto the procedure were required, because flying too far out on the inbound course would have put us into weather.

 

Upon arrival on the ground, I found that surface winds had been strong enough that not only had they closed traffic and approaches from the opposite direction, but they had blown cement barriers onto the taxiway. That's some strong wind. I've flown there when ATC has cancelled an approach clearance and directed the flight to go missed when a haboob, or dust storm overtook the final approach, causing a nice, clear visual on the ILS to go well below minimums for the approach, and leaving a missed as the only option. Again, ATC, and weather. Go figure.

 

In regards to the controller not understanding or knowing about minimums, your once again wrong... Unlike pilots who read the approach plates as needed, controllers commit to memory knowing every detail concerning their assigned airspace including published approaches and LOA's since they utilize this information daily in the performance of their assigned duties...

 

Absolutely wrong.

 

Certificate holders use minimums applicable only to them granted via operations specifications. The ATC facility does not have this information. In fact, on occasion a controller who knows weather is close to minimums will ask an operator "what are your minimums," and then report that the weather is at those minimums, in order to allow that operator to land. Once you have some experience in the system, you'll hear it enough that you'll come to recognize why.

 

There are numerous factors that ATC doesn't know about an aircraft approaching to land, or taking off. The landing minimums applicable to that aircraft, as well as the takeoff minimums, are among those things. If I'm flying an ILS, the controller has no idea if I'm capable of flying to Category II or III minimums, for example, or if the aircraft is capable. One might expect a large Boeing 747, for example, to be Cat III capable, but due to maintenance, crew, or other reasons, the airplane may only be Cat 1 capable on any given day. Does the controller know this? Not unless he's been in the cockpit of that airplane, and seen the current approach status placarded.

 

A light twin executes a circle to land procedure. What are the minimums? The controller has no way of knowing, because the minimums on a circling approach aren't established by a Vref of 1.3 Vso; they're established based on the speed at which the circling maneuver is performed, and that all depends on what speed the pilot elects to use. The category of the aircraft is a function of the speed, and the category, in turn, determines the approach minimums.

 

I might be approaching using RNAV with VNAV capability, with a requirement to maintain MDA/DA plus fifty feet. The controller has no way of knowing that. I might have a maintenance deferral on the glideslope, meaning that while I'm cleared for the ILS, I'll be using localizer-only minimums. The controller has no way of knowing that unless I advise the controller. One should not expect that the controller knows the minimums for the procedure without having an opportunity to be informed of these details, and these are often not available to the controller.

 

How about also showing everyone an approach plate that authorizes an instrument approach to a closed runway, since this is also one of your statements... I never seen one, however with my limited knowledge I guess it's possible, heck anythings possible, but I would have to see it to believe it....

 

How about KLCK ILS 23L, when runway 23L is closed?

 

 

You'll note that minimums are provided for flying the approach, an ILS, to runway 23L, but sidestepping to 23R. I've flown this procedure when 23L is closed; I've flown the instrument approach to this closed runway,then sidestepped, per ATC, to 23R. It's not a big deal.

 

Again, you say you've never seen an approach to a closed runway. You're a student pilot. Just how many approaches have you seen? I've flown approaches throughout the USA, in every state; thousands of them, as well as on every continent but Antarctica, and in nearly every country around the globe. You describe these things as though they're unheard of and I can tell you plainly that they're not. In fact, they're not that uncommon.

 

I've had approaches unavailable for any reason ranging from weather to mortar fire and explosions on or near the runway; horses, people, skunks, aircraft, and cars on the runway. Unfavorable winds, wind shear, and obscuring phenomena. Traffic. Approaches in use. Navaids unavailable. Yada, yada, yada. How many of these have you personally seen? I was cleared for an approach one day then denied the approach when the aircraft ahead of me made an emergency egress on the runway. It happens. It happens for weather, runway condition, ATC requirements, traffic, and a host of other reasons, but it most certainly does happen.

 

Approaches to closed runways happen all the time. You queried as to whether the approach chart recognizes this; it's irrelevant. The approach chart does not need to state "approach to closed runway approved" because that's nonsensical. Approaches are conducted to closed runways, generally terminating in a missed approach or a circle to land or sidestep maneuver, as previously noted. Again, as previously noted, approaches are conducted to water, or to helipads, or to locations with no runway.

 

And I still say ATC has no authority for denying an approach clearance simply because of weather.

 

Failure to deny the procedure to Delta #191 in August of 1985 lead to the loss of 163 lives at Dallas on the approach to runway 17L, when the flight encountered a severe microburst. You wouldn't find ATC clearing the flight for that procedure today under those conditions.

ILS 23L.pdf

Edited December 1, 2011 by avbug

[Gomer Pylot]

I think the proximate reason for denying approaches due to winds, thunderstorms, etc is still separation. ATC isn't going to approve an approach in the opposite direction of the traffic flow at a busy airport. They may out in the sticks. The conditions cited by the OP were visibility/ceiling, and I will continue to insist that ATC has no authority to deny an approach simply because of reported ceiling or visibility. One can always come up with unusual situations where the airport is closed for all sorts of reasons, but if the only reasons are ceiling and/or visibility, then the approach clearance should be issued on the pilot's request, IFR separation permitting.

 

I think this discussion has run its course.

[helistar]

You'll note that minimums are provided for flying the approach, an ILS, to runway 23L, but sidestepping to 23R. I've flown this procedure when 23L is closed; I've flown the instrument approach to this closed runway,then sidestepped, per ATC, to 23R. It's not a big deal.

 

Ah we like to con-volute the discussion with technical information... Your cleared the approach to land rwy 23R using the navaid for 23L... Your not cleared to a closed runway... Nice example for those less knowledgeable about the side step approach...

 

4-8-7. SIDE-STEP MANEUVER

TERMINAL

Side-step Maneuver. When authorized by an instrument

approach procedure, you may clear an aircraft

for an approach to one runway and inform the aircraft

that landing will be made on a parallel runway.

EXAMPLE-

“Cleared I-L-S Runway seven left approach. Side-step to

runway seven right.”

 

NOTE

Side-step maneuvers require higher weather minima/

MDA. These higher minima/MDA are published on the

instrument approach charts.

[helistar]

Crash,

Here's some useful info regarding practice approaches and the controllers requirements...

 

4-8-11. PRACTICE APPROACHES

Except for military aircraft operating at military

airfields, ensure that neither VFR nor IFR practice

approaches disrupt the flow of other arriving and

departing IFR or VFR aircraft. Authorize, withdraw

authorization, or refuse to authorize practice

approaches as traffic conditions require. Normally,

approaches in progress should not be terminated.

 

NOTE

The priority afforded other aircraft over practice

instrument approaches is not intended to be so rigidly

applied that it causes grossly inefficient application of

services.

 

a. Separation.

1. IFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches

shall be afforded standard separation in

accordance with Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5,

Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 minima until:

 

(a) The aircraft lands, and the flight is

terminated, or

 

( The pilot cancels the flight plan.

 

2. Where procedures require application of IFR

separation to VFR aircraft practicing instrument

approaches, standard IFR separation in accordance

with Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and

Chapter 7 shall be provided. Controller responsibility

for separation begins at the point where the approach

clearance becomes effective. Except for heavy

aircraft/B757, 500 feet vertical separation may be

applied between VFR aircraft and between a VFR

and an IFR aircraft.

 

Practice Instrument Approaches.

3. Where separation services are not provided to

VFR aircraft practicing instrument approaches, the

controller shall;

(a) Instruct the pilot to maintain VFR.

( Advise the pilot that separation services

are not provided.

 

PHRASEOLOGY-

“(Aircraft identification) MAINTAIN VFR, PRACTICE

APPROACH APPROVED, NO SEPARATION SERVICES

PROVIDED.”

 

Provide traffic information or advise the

pilot to contact the appropriate facility.

 

4. If an altitude is assigned, including at or

above/below altitudes, the altitude specified must

meet MVA, minimum safe altitude, or minimum IFR

altitude criteria.

[avbug]

Your cleared the approach to land rwy 23R using the navaid for 23L... Your not cleared to a closed runway... Nice example for those less knowledgeable about the side step approach...

 

Negative.

 

In the example given, the initial clearance was (and is) "XXX, cleared to intercept the localizer, Runway 23L," with a subsequent, "Cleared ILS 23L." The landing clearance isn't necessarily (and wasn't) issued in conjunction with the approach clearance.

 

Formerly you stated that one is not cleared for an approach to a closed runway. You stated this incorrectly. The approach, a full ILS, is to a closed runway. The landing clearance, however, is eventually issued to another runway. The approach clearance and the landing clearance are not necessarily (and were not) issued concurrently.

 

This is common with circling approaches, as well. One may fly an approach to one runway, knowing fully that the runway isn't available for any number of reasons, with the intent of circling to land on a different runway.

 

In some cases, the landing clearance may be for a specific runway, or multiple runways (eg, cleared to land any runway).

 

I think the proximate reason for denying approaches due to winds, thunderstorms, etc is still separation.

 

No, the "proximate" reason for denying an approach due to wind is wind.

 

The "proximate" reason for denying an approach due to a thunderstorm is the thunderstorm.

 

Traffic does not create the wind. Traffic does not create the thunderstorm.

 

The wind exists regardless of the existence of traffic. Likewise the thunderstorm.

 

When winds are too high to land on a runway, approaches aren't conducted to that runway, or in some cases are conducted to that runway for the purpose of circling to a different runway.

[helistar]

The side-step approach is simply a approach to a parallel runway using an established procedure that has been deemed suitable for two parallel runways... This procedure has greatly increased weather minimums to facilitate the ability for the pilot to side-step to a parallel runway and at no time during the procedure is the aircraft cleared to a closed runway...

 

controllers required phraseology:

“Cleared I-L-S Runway seven left approach. Side-step to runway seven right.”

[Gomer Pylot]

Helistar, what I think you're missing in all this is that a clearance to fly an approach is not a clearance to land. The approach controller cannot clear you to land, the local controller in the tower does that. A large number of instrument approaches result in a missed approach, not a landing. Almost every checkride I ever had consisted of 4 instrument approaches with only one landing after the last one. Most training approaches end in missed approaches. So it makes no difference whether the runway is open or closed. The approach controller can clear you for any approach, but the local controller will only clear you to land on an open runway. Even if the entire airfield is closed, it's possible to fly an instrument approach to it, and then execute a missed approach to either go somewhere else or fly more approaches to a miss.

[helistar]

Helistar, what I think you're missing in all this is that a clearance to fly an approach is not a clearance to land. The approach controller cannot clear you to land, the local controller in the tower does that.

 

I'm aware of this and in fact what happens during the approach is as you near the outer marker the approach controller advises the tower of your intentions asking the tower for permission to allow you to proceed (enter tower controlled airspace) and then issues your permission to land, based on approval from the tower...

[avbug]

The side-step approach is simply a approach to a parallel runway using an established procedure that has been deemed suitable for two parallel runways...

 

You previously stated that an approach clearance will never be issued to a closed runway. This was incorrect. Approach clearances to closed runways, to approach clearances to locations which do not have a runway are issued regularly.

 

The approach clearance and the landing clearance are two separate issues.

 

You also stated that the landing clearance will be issued on conjunction with the approach clearance, and later that the landing clearance will be issued at the outer marker. This is often not the case. Landing clearances may be issued much later; all the way minimums. It happens to me all the time.

 

In fact, often one is cleared onto an ILS without the ILS clearance; cleared to join the localizer, and later cleared for the ILS. In that case, one must follow the localizer but may not depart the cleared altitude, using only the localizer for lateral guidance. Only once given the clearance for the ILS may one intercept the glideslope and commence descent. Upon receipt of the approach clearance, one is still not cleared to land, and may be directed to continue, but not to land. One may fly most of the approach,and be inside the marker (where markers might exist) before (or if) a landing clearance is issued.

[helistar]

You also stated that the landing clearance will be issued on conjunction with the approach clearance

 

Never said that...

 

Also if you would take the time to provide documentation that confirms your position as I have, you would understand the following...

 

Except as permitted by para 4-8-7, Side-step Maneuver, where parallel runways are served by separate ILS/MLS systems and one of the runways is closed, the ILS/MLS associated with the closed runway should not be used for approaches .

 

Straight out of the 7110.65... so now you can start debating the definition of "should"...

[JDHelicopterPilot]

Wow, what a thread. My head hurts.

[Falko]

Can't we just all get along here on VR ?

[Adam S]

I'm just glad that it's black and white...

 

By the way, this would have been much more enjoyable if I overheard it while I was out flying.

 

Thanks for the insight.

[avbug]

Straight out of the 7110.65... so now you can start debating the definition of "should"...

 

No need; we've only to look at what you posted to see that you don't understand the material.

 

You're trying to tell us that approaches to a closed runway aren't acceptable, when the paragraph you quoted states that they are?

 

The example I provided previously (because you really needed an example, then apparently couldn't live with what was provided) aren't parallel runways served by separate ILS/MLS approaches. Only one of the runways is served by an approach. That runway was closed. Being closed (with a big lighted X on the runway, incidentally, and NoTAMs showing it closed) didn't preclude the issuance of a clearance on the full ILS to that runway, and though it doubtless shocks you to your socks, it didn't preclude the issuance of the clearance sans a landing clearance until well inside the GSIA/FAF. Imagine that.

 

You still contend that approaches aren't flown to closed runways. Do you not know that approaches are flown to helipads where there is no runway? Do you not know that approaches are flown to water, without a runway? Do you not know that approaches are flown to a closed and unavailable runway while circling to other runways is used? How could you? You're a student pilot, right?

 

Also if you would take the time to provide documentation that confirms your position

 

 

Other than 30 years of doing this professionally, as opposed to you, a student pilot, who didn't understand what he read in a book? Okay.

 

Your "quote" referenced paragraph 4-8-7 of JO 7110.65T (you're using Change 3?), but didn't actually quote anything or discuss 4-8-7, which does touch on sidestep maneuvers. These are indicated to be acceptable, contrary to your allusion that such maneuvers are not, "When authorized by an instrument approach procedure, you may clear an aircraft for an approach to one runway and inform the aircraft that a landing will be made on a parallel runway." The paragraph which you attempted to quote, however, references parallel runways which are both served by ILS or MLS procedures, and is irrelevant to the example previously provided.

 

The paragraph that you attempted to quote, in fact, is excerpted from 3-3-2, and you conveniently missed quoting the beginning of that section, which states:

 

"If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or unsafe runway, inform the pilot that the runway is closed or unsafe, and if the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate parts of the NOTAM and inform him/her that a clearance cannot be issued. Then, if the pilot insists, and in your opinion the operation would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation will be at his/her own risk."

 

Note that the inability to issue a landing clearance on a closed runway does not preclude the issuance of an approach clearance to that runway.

[helonorth]

^{avbug, you need a hobby.}

[helistar]

I clearly understand and maybe you should take the time to read my original post which clearly states a pilot can ignore the controllers advise... After all he is the pilot in command of the aircraft and can do as he deems fit as per my original post shown below...

 

So as you can see below I've already discussed this on page ONE of this discussion...

 

airfields are closed all the time for weather (fogged in, lightning, snow, hail, wind shear, tornado,

can a pilot ignore ATC advisories without declaring an emergency... Yes... is the controller required to advise the pilot in doing so, he's doing so at his own risk... Yes...

 

 

Avbug... You state

"Your "quote" referenced paragraph 4-8-7 of JO 7110.65T (you're using Change 3?), but didn't actually quote anything or discuss 4-8-7, which does touch on sidestep maneuvers"

 

Sorry to say... I've stated that already...

Except as permitted by para 4-8-7, Side-step Maneuver, where parallel runways are served by separate ILS/MLS systems and one of the runways is closed, the ILS/MLS associated with the closed runway should not be used for approaches .

 

Avbug....

Now I have to ask where is your "Note:" stated in the 7110.65

"Note that the inability to issue a landing clearance on a closed runway does not preclude the issuance of an approach clearance to that runway."

 

If it Exist... Please show or tell me where...