PilotEdge Forums

This evening I made an IFR flight from KSNA to KCRQ and was given the visual approach. Not having experienced an IFR visual approach before, I wasn't too sure what to expect. (My lack of confidence wasn't improved by the fact that I hadn't flown on PE for a while and I was flying a new and faster type of plane.) You can see the approach path here:
http://peaware.pilotedge.net/flight.cfm?id=42484

The vectors took me to a point where I was approaching the airfield on what seemed to be a crosswind leg, but on the "dead" side of the field, since the traffic pattern is on the opposite side. The approach controller cut me loose with the information that I could extend the downwind leg if necessary. Not having any clue what the controller was intending at this point, I turned on to final and did a go-around in the traffic pattern.
What should I have done?

Steve

A visual approach is just what it sounds like as long as you keep the field or plane in front of you in sight. All you needed to do was continue the pattern and land from the side you were vectored to. Also, sincesince you were still on an IFR clearance your go around is actually a missed approach and you should have made the require call to ATC.

Brian Z wrote:Also, sincesince you were still on an IFR clearance your go around is actually a missed approach and you should have made the require call to ATC.

There is no missed approach procedure for a visual approach, because it is not an Instrument Approach. See Aim 5-4-23e:

e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.

I was the controller for your flight this evening/morning.

My plan was for you to hopefully see the field on the initial vector from OCN as it passed on your right side as you went east of the field. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons that didn't happen. From there my new plan turned into bringing you around the south side onto a left base. This eventually happened, but not till you were close to the field. Seeing as you were quite high at that point (2600 {which as a note was the lowest I could legally bring you}) I indicated you could join the downwind. My intent was for you to join the left downwind as needed to descend down.

This is contrary to the standard right pattern, however ATC is allowed to override the normal traffic pattern. 91.126 is the reference. It states that compliance with traffic pattern indicators is required "When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower".

In terms of the go around, your handling of that was on par. You informed us of the go around and were given a standard traffic pattern as traffic and weather allowed for it. This meets the intent of 5-4-23e quoted above.

Peter
Thanks for your explanation of events, which all makes sense with the wonderful benefit of hindsight. I did report the field in sight on my inbound track from Oceanside, but there was a lot of other stuff happening at that point and either my transmission was missed or there wasn't an opportunity for the approach controller to respond in time. As a point of learning, what would have been your intentions at the point where I originally reported the field in sight? I was sort of expecting either a base leg or final leg release point, but was already fretting about the fact that I was much too high to easily join the pattern. Thanks for the experience!

Steve

I didn't hear your airport in sight report, which I'm guessing was due to the traffic volume. If you make a transmission and don't get a response, don't be afraid to say it again to make sure we got it.

From where you were a downwind or base would have been an appropriate entry.

Understood - there was indeed a lot of traffic at the time and I should have repeated my transmission. This is what PE is for.
Steve

Workshop #11 covers visual approaches in great detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlYqWbWvsxM#t=2505

Jeff N wrote:Workshop #11 covers visual approaches in great detail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlYqWbWvsxM#t=2505

Fantastic - thanks for the workshop link! I'd got as far as Part 1 of the instrument approach series and then taken a rest . In the words of Lenin, I should have studied, studied again and then studied some more.
Steve