Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??

[Big Pistons Forever]

What you are simulating is not flying an approach, you are simulating IFR procedures while flying under VFR rules. I have flown hundreds of simulated IFR approaches,at controlled airports. All started with a request to the tower for what I wanted, followed by a clearance that said cleared for the simulated XXX via a transition, a heading or self vectoring ending with the requirement to maintain VFR at all times.

With respect to guys practicing IFR under an IFR flight plan at uncontrolled airports on sunny Saturdays. All the VFR traffic will not know where all the IFR approach fixes are, so reporting over BUMFK will be entirely useless to all the VFR traffic in the area so please add a geographic reference. eg "Hateplanes traffic ABC is over ASSHL at 2000 ft 6 mi West of the airport, Hateplanes"

[JigglyBus]

What you are simulating is not flying an approach, you are simulating IFR procedures while flying under VFR rules. I have flown hundreds of simulated IFR approaches,at controlled airports. All started with a request to the tower for what I wanted, followed by a clearance that said cleared for the simulated XXX via a transition, a heading or self vectoring ending with the requirement to maintain VFR at all times.

I hate to correct you Big Pists, but ATC is not allowed to clear anyone for a simulated approach. They could could say 'simulated approach approved, maintain VFR at all times', but they definitely can't clear you for it. It's explicitly not allowed within Manops/MATS.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that they didn't, I'm just saying that they are not allowed to.

[valleyboy]

From what I understand, they actually do

Again a little drift but I tend to disagree there is no reason not to do what they do in Europe and transition levels are assigned and are not fixed. I worry much more about running into people (lower levels) with improper or out of date alt settings. I can see the object behind the thinking to make it less complicated for the dumb pilots but anyone who is flying and not always considering terrain and obstructions, well I will say no more.

Back to topic this issue obviously rears it's ugly head in "uncontrolled airports" and likely out of direct approach radar. The other consideration is that they are students or being trained and they are using SOP speeds, we all know that what happens on a training flight does not translate well in day to day normal ops, like assigning 160 kts to final fix in some parts of the world free speed is approved below fl 100 , add 300 kts into the mix -- lmfaoooo nope no excuse to bitch about it - it is what is. You got to learn to do it right so at least you have an idea how to be stabilised at 1000 feet.

[digits_]

From what I understand, they actually do

Again a little drift but I tend to disagree there is no reason not to do what they do in Europe and transition levels are assigned and are not fixed. I worry much more about running into people (lower levels) with improper or out of date alt settings. I can see the object behind the thinking to make it less complicated for the dumb pilots but anyone who is flying and not always considering terrain and obstructions, well I will say no more.

The transition altitude is fixed per country if I recall correctly. The transition level depends on the altimeter settings and varies. If the Netherlands had a 17000 ft mountain, their transition altitude would be something like FL180 as well. Canada has 17000 ft mountains, so its transition altitude is FL180. The only difference is that Canada is a gazillion times the size of the Netherlands, which gives funny results.

[Big Pistons Forever]

What you are simulating is not flying an approach, you are simulating IFR procedures while flying under VFR rules. I have flown hundreds of simulated IFR approaches,at controlled airports. All started with a request to the tower for what I wanted, followed by a clearance that said cleared for the simulated XXX via a transition, a heading or self vectoring ending with the requirement to maintain VFR at all times.

I hate to correct you Big Pists, but ATC is not allowed to clear anyone for a simulated approach. They could could say 'simulated approach approved, maintain VFR at all times', but they definitely can't clear you for it. It's explicitly not allowed within Manops/MATS.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that they didn't, I'm just saying that they are not allowed to.

I miss spoke Jiggly bus is correct. However from an operational perspective the intent is the same. The tower knows what I want to do it and have approved it. There is also the understanding that the tower may revoke or modify that approval if I am going to get in the way of real IFR traffic. Like every interaction with ATC if you are flexible and professional with ATC you will almost always get what you want.

[fishface]

From what I understand, they actually do

Again a little drift but I tend to disagree there is no reason not to do what they do in Europe and transition levels are assigned and are not fixed. I worry much more about running into people (lower levels) with improper or out of date alt settings. I can see the object behind the thinking to make it less complicated for the dumb pilots but anyone who is flying and not always considering terrain and obstructions, well I will say no more.

The transition altitude is fixed per country if I recall correctly. The transition level depends on the altimeter settings and varies. If the Netherlands had a 17000 ft mountain, their transition altitude would be something like FL180 as well. Canada has 17000 ft mountains, so its transition altitude is FL180. The only difference is that Canada is a gazillion times the size of the Netherlands, which gives funny results.

I think it’s because we copied our neighbours to the south more than anything else.
Lots of mountainous countries have low transition altitudes.
I think it’s better...safer

[valleyboy]

Indeed we seem to always follow the American way.

[goldeneagle]

The transition altitude is fixed per country if I recall correctly. The transition level depends on the altimeter settings and varies. If the Netherlands had a 17000 ft mountain, their transition altitude would be something like FL180 as well. Canada has 17000 ft mountains, so its transition altitude is FL180. The only difference is that Canada is a gazillion times the size of the Netherlands, which gives funny results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... _of_Canada

Mt Logan reaches up to over 19,000 feet, 19,541 listed on that page, others list it as 19,551. Either way, it's well into the flight levels.

So no, transition altitude is not based on highest mountain in a country, if it were, in Canada we'd be using 20 or 21 thousand.

[goingnowherefast]

What's the transition altitude/level in northern domestic airspace? Certantly no mountains in the Arctic (sarcasm)!

In southern domestic airspace, I don't understand why the transition altitude isn't 10,000 or 12,000 to encompass pressurized airplanes and the performance/range typical of those aircraft. 18,000 works too, so I don't particularly care. Give me one transition altitude across the whole country/continent so it's easy to remember and lets move on.

To keep this on topic, if it's Day VFR and you have a good understanding of the traffic in the area, don't do a visual approach, just cancel IFR. However, if you haven't a clue where the other airplanes are, maybe stick with IFR and let ATC keep you apart.

At night, 705 aircraft can't cancel IFR, so a visual approach or a full instrument approach are the only options.

[photofly]

The transition altitude is fixed per country if I recall correctly.

It varies within country too.

Looking at some Greenland plates, it varies 6000/7000/9000.
In England it's 3000, 6000 or 5000 depending on where you are, and what time of day it is
https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/P ... en-GB.html

[digits_]

Well, then I'll join the "this doesn't make sense" side of things. The more you learn!

Still can't shake the feeling it is based on obstacles somehow, but I can't find a reference, it is probably a figment of my imagination.

[photofly]

Nothing makes sense.

Here's a document from the CAA consulting about moving the TA to 18000MSL in the UK:
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... titude.pdf

And here's another, from NATS, about standardizing the TA in parts of South East England at 3000, or 6000:
https://www.nats.aero/wp-content/upload ... tation.pdf

One wonders if the authors of the two documents ever talked to each other. (I haven't been able to check the dates.)

It kind-of makes Canada looked joined up, for once.

[fishface]

It’s like here we use “altimeter” with inHg. Then most of the world with “QNH” with hPa.
Then there’s Japan with “QNH” with inHg.
Then somewhere else with “altimeter” and hPa.
Oh yea and Russia who uses QFE haha

[thenoflyzone]

Tower controllers cannot take control of IFR aircraft that are not intending to land. Therefore IFR separation must be maintained the whole time, from both other arrivals and IFR departures. Its all about who has responsibility of control of the aircraft, the IFR unit or the tower.

Not necessarily.

5 words. Controller applied visual departure separation.

Your unit has to be approved to do it.

This basically means that between an IFR trainer on a planned missed approach and an IFR departure, a tower controller can apply visual separation instead of radar separation. You need to make sure that before you handoff the IFR trainer back to TCU, you have a form of non-visual separation. Vertical, 3 miles or the aircraft are on assigned tracks that diverge by 15 degrees or more.

[thenoflyzone]

From what I understand, they actually do. The flight levels start above the highes obstacle, with a safe margin, per country. That means that in flat countries like the Netherlands you have low transition altitudes. The highest mountains in Canada are around 17000 ft if I recall correctly, so add 1000 ft safety margin and you are at FL180. That does make it silly when flying in Saskatchewan, but it looks like they wanted to cover the whole country under one rule.

Huh? Mount Logan up in Yukon comes in at 19,500ft.

What about Switzerland, France or Italy, all of which have peaks nearing 16,000 ft and yet the transition altitude ranges from 5,000 ft in Nice to 7,000 ft. in Zurich.

[valleyboy]

Caribbean 2000 ft

[fishface]

Some transition altitudes aren’t the same even within the same country.

[Driving Comet]

Tower controllers cannot take control of IFR aircraft that are not intending to land. Therefore IFR separation must be maintained the whole time, from both other arrivals and IFR departures. Its all about who has responsibility of control of the aircraft, the IFR unit or the tower.

Not necessarily.

5 words. Controller applied visual departure separation.

Your unit has to be approved to do it.

This basically means that between an IFR trainer on a planned missed approach and an IFR departure, a tower controller can apply visual separation instead of radar separation. You need to make sure that before you handoff the IFR trainer back to TCU, you have a form of non-visual separation. Vertical, 3 miles or the aircraft are on assigned tracks that diverge by 15 degrees or more.

Yes yes there will always be caveats and local procedures that will happen airport to airport...thanks...

[A346Dude]

Tower controllers cannot take control of IFR aircraft that are not intending to land. Therefore IFR separation must be maintained the whole time, from both other arrivals and IFR departures. Its all about who has responsibility of control of the aircraft, the IFR unit or the tower.

Not necessarily.

5 words. Controller applied visual departure separation.

Your unit has to be approved to do it.

I wish we had it. I am allowed to depart an IFR in front of a 737 at 3 miles final, but I can't depart it in front of a IFR trainer barely inside the zone grounding 60. Some of the rules just don't make a ton of sense.

[thenoflyzone]

I wish we had it. I am allowed to depart an IFR in front of a 737 at 3 miles final, but I can't depart it in front of a IFR trainer barely inside the zone grounding 60. Some of the rules just don't make a ton of sense.

Where do you work? Honestly, if it's at anyone of Canada's busiest commercial airports, there is no reason why you shouldn't have the ability to carry out that procedure if necessary. You can even do it between 2 IFR departures. One of them doesn't need to be a trainer. So if you're a busy airport with some IFR training, the operational gain to be had is there, for both the trainer, and commercial traffic. Talk to your manager/unit procedure supervisor. If no one pushes for it, it will never happen.

We have it here at YUL. We don't have IFR trainers, but we use it between 2 IFR departures, especially when you are forced to leave a prop on runway heading because of conflicting traffic on the parallel runway. Saves time when you have 5 or 10 departures waiting to takeoff. (Pilot applied visual departures come in handy as well ! But that's a different story)

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that YOW and YQB have the ability to do it as well (I used to work YQB/YOW TCU a few years ago, and remember something to that effect in our agreements with both towers). There is a lot of slow IFR training at both those airports, so the ability to release IFR departures when the trainer is inside 3 miles final is a definite plus for commercial traffic.

So if you work at an airport like YYC, YEG or YWG, I don't see why you shouldn't have access to that procedure as well.