"Proceed Visually" vs. "Proceed VFR"

[tracon]

I'm always interested in hearing different views or perceptions pilots have about various IFR procedures so let me ask a serious question.

 

During the type of approach we've been discussing and knowing obstacle or terrain avoidance between the MAP to the landing site is the responsibility of the pilot, how do you justify proceeding farther than the MAP in less than minima conditions and think your still safe flying a published IFR missed, in this example lets say you've flown 1 mile past the MAP, threshold is another 3/4 mile away and now you've lost sight of the field with no possible way to proceed any further. Tell me step by step what happens, I'm serious enlighten me as to what you would do, and to simply say oh the terrain is flat where I fly isn't a valid answer.

 

I've included the pilots approach requirements from the AIM below to save you time from having to go back and look it up, however your welcome to do so.

 

“PROCEED VISUALLY FROM (NAMED MAP)

OR CONDUCT THE SPECIFIED MISSED APPROACH.”

(a) This phrase requires the pilot to either acquire and maintain visual contact with the landing site at or prior to the MAP, or execute a missed approach.

 

( The pilot is required to maintain the published minimum visibility throughout the visual segment.

 

© Similar to an approach to a runway, the missed approach segment protection is not provided between the MAP and the landing site, and obstacle or terrain avoidance from the MAP to the landing site is the responsibility of the pilot.

[jimbo2181]

No one is arguing that you need to have the approach minima in order to proceed visually. That was never said. If you have the landing zone in site at the MAP then you have the visbility minimum to proceed. They don't assign a 3/4 vis minimum for a landing area that is 1 mile from the MAP.

 

What was said is that sh!t happens in the real world. You can be at MDA (which you are supposed to maintain until you intercept an approach angle which is planned at 6 degrees to the pad) with the require minimum visibility and as you are flying the visual segment you can fly into a unobserved SCT layer that would effectively put you into IMC.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2FdocumentLibrary%2Fmedia%2FOrder%2F8260.42B.pdf&ei=ltmNT__OEOGC2AXoyciCDA&usg=AFQjCNE6YyL5_SZbwI_QcvjbB5Hg6S9f3Q

 

The FAA order does state that although not terped there is a measure of protection from obstacles between the MAP and the helipad.

 

As far as what to do when you find yourself in that awful situation of losing visual contact that you thought you could maintain...well I would most likely compare it to a circle to land procedure. Immediately climb and turn toward the protected area (at the missed approach point) this of course being over run if you are aware of obstacles in the area...which you should be.

 

The FAAs preferred or optimum distance between the MAP and intended touch down area is .65 miles. This makes it very comparable to VOR approaches to IFR airports. As you noted even a "normal" approach to a runway has the restriction of not providing missed approach segment protection between the MAP and runway.

[C of G]

Getting back to the orig question, I think that what I'm getting is that from the MAP onward, you must maintain VFR and if HEMS, then A021 applies. The AIM seems to clearly state that.

 

What you do with it varies from cockpit to cockpit. Again, I'm looking for a way to use the intended minimus on the plate. Hopefully there will be some clarification on HEMS IFR ops as opposed to the cross country requirements when breaking out. Seems counter productive.

 

In any event, I'm attaching an excerpt from a GoM plate to a swamp heliport. You can see that the visual segments going to these heliports are all well over a mile and in some cases you have to pass a 525' obstacle with an MDA as low as 300'.

 

 

 

http://helicopterfor...28_77_13817.jpg

 

 

 

http://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/uploads//gallery/album_77/gallery_28_77_9917.jpg

 

 

 

Being familiar with the area and seeing the plate, being two crew, TAWS, NVG and radar equipped, I don't see why we should be limited to 1000/3 when on a GPS approach.

Edited April 17, 2012 by C of G

[jimbo2181]

I'd disagree c of g. They purposely stated a difference between proceed visually and proceed vfr.

 

I think it is an over sight on the part of the fax not giving guidance to that difference. Guarantee if you ask 5 different FSDOs you will get at least 6 different answers.

 

Also I know of multiple programs using IFR approaches and using the approach minimums to fly, not the A021 vfr requirements.

[C of G]

Guarantee if you ask 5 different FSDOs you will get at least 6 different answers.

 

 

I get that part. I also get that there is a verbiage difference, so surely there should be a reason. I would suspect a reason other than the 30°, in my opinion. But, my opinion, without a reference to back it up, doesn't really mater. The AIM seems to state the same "Cancel IFR" for both. I'll get with my POI next time I see him.

 

 

Regarding the programs using it, maybe they are going into controlled airspace? I dunno, just supposing.

 

Thanks for your input and leg work.

 

I appreciate it... The last PDF you provided kinda opens a can of worms, since the plates I use clearly don't match the "visually" criteria on 4-19.

Edited April 18, 2012 by C of G

[Gomer Pylot]

Tracon, on many, if not most, of the helicopter approaches I've flown, ATC loses radar contact immediately after the FAF, if not before. Often there is no approach control involved, just center. The entire world is not within 10 miles of a major airport in southern California.

 

CofG, at the risk of becoming annoyingly redundant, AO21 only applies to HEMS VFR operations, and in the scenario you posit, you are IFR until you cancel your clearance. It is recommended that you cancel at or near the MAP, but it's not a legal requirement. The AIM is not a regulation. You cancel as soon as practical, and only you can decide when it's practical. However, you're the PIC, and in the cockpit at the scene, so it's your decision as to what minima you follow. I won't argue with you any further about it. I will say that I've flown the approach posted above many times, but AO21 does not apply to it. It's a Part 135 approach, special training required, and AO21 only applies to HEMS operations. N. B., the required visibility is far below what would be necessary to see most of the landing areas. Seeing the heliport at the MAP is not required, you just have to have 1/2 mile visibility in the daytime, 1 mile at night, and you need to know the area. I wouldn't fly that approach SPIFR, and it's not authorized for that. FWIW, this is one of those approaches where radar contact will definitely be lost before the MAP, but there are many more, all over the US, away from the big cities where ATC stays.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Gomer Pylot

[C of G]

Thanks Gomer. I am not SPIFR and it is a HEMS contract I'm on. Appreciated.

[jimbo2181]

Hate to keep beating a dead horse but I emailed Steve at Hickock and associates concerning non part 97 approaches since they work closely with the FAA every day making these approaches. Here is the reply:

 

Short answer: yes, whatever “VFR” is at the time of the approach is what is applied to continue from the MAP on a Copter Point-in-Space (PinS) approach noted “to proceed VFR”.

 

The definition of “VFR” is always problematic: examples…

 

HEMS uses A021 which stipulates various “VFR” minimums some of which are equipage and whether they are continuing off a PinS VFR approach, aided or non-aided, day, night, etc. etc.

 

There is of course the FAR’s for 91 and basic Part135 as well: even HEMS operate during training and ferry and other times under Part-91.

 

There is night, day, local, cross country, etc. etc.

 

Presumably (although not well defined) would be any special VFR LOAs an operator may have with a given ATC facility.

 

So the short answer is the only answer: whatever VFR is per that time of day or night and per either the FARs or an OpsSpec is what the pilot should apply to proceed VFR on a PinS approach that does not include a visual segment (in which case it would be noted to proceed visually… in which case ‘VFR’ does not apply at all).

[C of G]

Thanks again, Jimbo,

 

The VFR is understood. Whatever VFR is for you at that point in time. It was just the "Visually" and the AIM references that buggered me. Especially knowing the plates I fly off of are old and the definitions that they use to determine the "VFR or Visually" term don't seem like a good fit. (>30° turn, long visual segment, etc)

 

I appreciate the leg work. I've read and digested what everyone has said, so thanks all around.

 

I'll be getting with my POI when I see him and I'll post his take on it.