Visual segment

[RobertGary1]

What does this warning actually mean? And which segment is it saying is “visual”?

 

-Robert

[Andy95W]

It looks like once you reach the MDA, you begin the visual segment which has obstacles- one of which is a 146' tower on short final.

Interesting question!

[carusoam]

The 1% power left made me jump for my cords.   
 

Best regards,

-a-

[Andy95W]

3 minutes ago, carusoam said:

The 1% power left made me jump for my cords.   
 

Best regards,

-a-

I think I use most of my battery on MooneySpace too.

[RobertGary1]

13 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

It looks like once you reach the MDA, you begin the visual segment which has obstacles- one of which is a 146' tower on short final.

Interesting question!

How does that differ from any other approach that you have to be visual to leave the mda? Is it just saying that in addition to looking for the runway you need to look for the tower?

 

-Robert 

[ChrisV]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

Is it just saying that in addition to looking for the runway you need to look for the tower?

Yes.  It is just emphasizing the tower so that you are not caught off-guard.

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

The 1% power left made me jump for my cords.   
 

Best regards,

-a-

You crack me up -a-

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, ChrisV said:

Yes.  It is just emphasizing the tower so that you are not caught off-guard.

HOly smokes, that's a 130 ft obstacle right off the south end of the runway!  What the heck is that doing there??

I couldn't see anything on google maps that looks like a 130 ft obstacle

Edit: ahh, look at the obstacle departure procedure will put things in perspective.  That's about the longest obstacle list on an ODP I've seen!

Edited October 10, 2020 by jaylw314

[Davidv]

It's probably one reason why the DA is 1000 feet over TDZE....

[Danb]

I believe there obstacles that are there when you go visual ie. Either end of runway stuff there sat dh is 400’ items towered etc you can see when below 400’

[Mooneymite]

38 minutes ago, Danb said:

I believe there obstacles that are there when you go visual ie. Either end of runway stuff there sat dh is 400’ items towered etc you can see when below 400’

Generally "visual segments" denote nonstandard descent rates required after the minimums, but...

There are quite a few "visual segmment" notes throughout the country...a lot in mountainous terrain.  One of my favorites is the note on the approach to Eagle

https://www.airnav.com/depart?http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2011/06403RD.PDF

The note:  "LDA/GS fly visual to airport." is a head scratcher when you look at where you are on the descent profile.  Does 4.3 miles trump the minimums?  One can start a food fight amongst the experts discussing "visual segments"!

To continue on a "visual segment" does one need VFR weather?  What visual cues are required at 4.3 nm?  Does visual contact with the terrain permit continuation? Approach lights?  Runway?  What?  Better be prepared with answers before one commences the approach.  It all happens fast.

[RobertGary1]

3 hours ago, Davidv said:

It's probably one reason why the DA is 1000 feet over TDZE....

And the DP requires a rate of climb of 1200 ft/min at 90 knots!

 

-Robert

[PT20J]

Anyone know how far an obstacle has to penetrate the 34:1 plane to require a note? Might be a good Wally Roberts question.

[jlunseth]

There is quite a bit of material in the AIM about visual segments. Let me start by saying I am not an expert on this, although I have flown IFR for several years I don’t recall ever having run into a “visual segment” approach until just recently. When I did, I looked it up. A part of AIM 5-4-5 is posted below. Answers to some of the questions raised in this thread are in that section. For example, what weather conditions are required during the visual? That is answered in subpara. 1, and also in the footnote which says you can lose contact with the visual references required by 91.175. But you must remain clear of clouds. Also, obstacle clearance is not guaranteed after the MAP, so you need to do your own obstacle clearance calculations, probably best to do that before you are on the approach and find you must fly a missed.  Sounds a lot like a CTL, in fact probably is dealt with the same way except I believe you can descend below the missed altitude. Here is part of 5-4-5. I encourage anyone doing one of these to read the whole AIM part, there is more material.

l. In isolated cases, an IAP may contain a published visual flight path. These procedures are annotated “Fly Visual to Airport” or “Fly Visual.” A dashed arrow indicating the visual flight path will be included in the profile and plan views with an approximate heading and distance to the end of the runway.

1. The depicted ground track associated with the “Fly Visual to Airport” segment should be flown as a “Dead Reckoning” course. When executing the “Fly Visual to Airport” segment, the flight visibility must not be less than that prescribed in the IAP; the pilot must remain clear of clouds and proceed to the airport maintaining visual contact with the ground. Altitude on the visual flight path is at the discretion of the pilot, and it is the responsibility of the pilot to visually acquire and avoid obstacles in the “Fly Visual to Airport” segment.

2. Missed approach obstacle clearance is assured only if the missed approach is commenced at the published MAP. Before initiating an IAP that contains a “Fly Visual to Airport” segment, the pilot should have preplanned climb out options based on aircraft performance and terrain features. Obstacle clearance is the responsibility of the pilot when the approach is continued beyond the MAP.

NOTE- The FAA Administrator retains the authority to approve instrument approach procedures where the pilot may not necessarily have one of the visual references specified in 14 CFR § 91.175 and related rules. It is not a function of procedure design to ensure compliance with § 91.175. The annotation “Fly Visual to Airport” provides relief from § 91.175 requirements that the pilot have distinctly visible and identifiable visual references prior to descent below MDA/DA.

Edited October 10, 2020 by jlunseth

[PT20J]

The AIM is inconsistent in terminology. Paragraph 5-4-5 cited by @jlunsethdescribes a “published visual flight path.”

The AIM Glossary has the following entry:

PUBLISHED INSTRUMENT APPROACH
PROCEDURE VISUAL SEGMENT− A segment on
an IAP chart annotated as “Fly Visual to Airport” or
“Fly Visual.” A dashed arrow will indicate the visual
flight path on the profile and plan view with an
associated note on the approximate heading and
distance. The visual segment should be flown as a
dead reckoning course while maintaining visual
conditions.
 

At any rate, whether it is a “segment” or a “flight path” a “published” one looks like this:

Skip

[RobertGary1]

28 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

 

NOTE- The FAA Administrator retains the authority to approve instrument approach procedures where the pilot may not necessarily have one of the visual references specified in 14 CFR § 91.175 and related rules. It is not a function of procedure design to ensure compliance with § 91.175. The annotation “Fly Visual to Airport” provides relief from § 91.175 requirements that the pilot have distinctly visible and identifiable visual references prior to descent below MDA/DA.

I think what you are describing would be much more clear. But this isn’t charted as your aim reference describes. In my case it ambiguously says “visual segment” without pointing out which segment snd doesn’t have any dashed line depicting it. I think as described by the aim it wouldn’t have generated confusion. 
 

So is this fundamentally different or an older method? It’s very unlike the FAA to have different wording and depiction for the same thing. 
 

-Robert 

[whiskytango]

8 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The AIM is inconsistent in terminology. Paragraph 5-4-5 cited by @jlunsethdescribes a “published visual flight path.”

The AIM Glossary has the following entry:

PUBLISHED INSTRUMENT APPROACH
PROCEDURE VISUAL SEGMENT− A segment on
an IAP chart annotated as “Fly Visual to Airport” or
“Fly Visual.” A dashed arrow will indicate the visual
flight path on the profile and plan view with an
associated note on the approximate heading and
distance. The visual segment should be flown as a
dead reckoning course while maintaining visual
conditions.
 

At any rate, whether it is a “segment” or a “flight path” a “published” one looks like this:

Skip

This is confusing.  The "PUBLISHED INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE VISUAL SEGMENT" begins at the MAP, which is 2.2 NM from the airport.  The minimums for this airport at 2 miles for Category A and B aircraft flying the LNAV approach. Does this mean that the first 0.2 miles of the visual segment may still be in the clag?

 

[jlunseth]

I agree that the AIM does not appear to use consistent wording. Confusingly, before that section (5-4-5, l.) that I cited there is material about a “visual segment”. The example given is the RNAV 9 a KAFJ, and the example is not even the current approach plate, if you look up the current plate there is now a level flight section (solid line) before the RWY. Subsection l. refers to a dashed line for the Fly Visual to Airport segment, but the line on the current RNAV 9 at KAFJ is a solid line, so what does that mean? Does it mean no going below the MDA once there?  It is somewhat difficult, looking at the example RNAV 9 in the AIM, to figure out what, exactly, the Visual Segment is that the plate is talking about. There is nothing on the example RNAV 9 that says what the segment is, except maybe the missed approach dashed line starting at the RWY. Are there two different regimes, a “visual segment” and a “Fly Visual to Airport,” also called a “Fly Visual”? What the footnote seems to say, though, is that the flight visibility requirements are governed by what is on the plate, and not by what any other section of the Regs. might provide, such as 91.175 (the section about what contact elements you must have to descend below MDA). So clear of clouds and the flight visibility required on the plate. 

@RobertGary - the current RNAV 9 at KAFJ is labeled the same way as your example, and the example in the AIM has the same language. The difference between the two, as I said above, is that the current plate has a solid level flight line before the RWY, just like your example does.

PS the one I ran into recently is the LDA 25 at Eagle (KEGE) if anyone wants to look at it.

Edited October 10, 2020 by jlunseth

[PT20J]

33 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

I think what you are describing would be much more clear. But this isn’t charted as your aim reference describes. In my case it ambiguously says “visual segment” without pointing out which segment snd doesn’t have any dashed line depicting it. I think as described by the aim it wouldn’t have generated confusion. 
 

So is this fundamentally different or an older method? It’s very unlike the FAA to have different wording and depiction for the same thing. 
 

-Robert 

The visual segment of any approach is from the MAP/DA to touchdown.  Look at the first graphic I posted. 

In unusual cases, it may also be charted as in the Juneau example.

Skip

[RobertGary1]

4 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The visual segment of any approach is from the MAP/DA to touchdown.  Look at the first graphic I posted.

But isn’t that always the case?

Maybe jn this case it would be clearer if they’d just said “obstacles after faf”  

-Robert

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

And the DP requires a rate of climb of 1200 ft/min at 90 knots!

 

-Robert

Yeah, if you look at google maps, the terrain slopes upwards to the south, with a bunch of tall trees on a hill.  about a mile south there's a honking radio tower or something

[jaylw314]

7 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

But isn’t that always the case?

Maybe jn this case it would be clearer if they’d just said “obstacles after faf”  

-Robert

It's all the same thing--they don't have to be precise since it's all advisory anyway.  If they gave you instructions or limits on the approach plate, then they'd have to be precise about what they mean by "visual segment"

[RobertGary1]

Just now, jaylw314 said:

Yeah, if you look at google maps, the terrain slopes upwards to the south, with a bunch of tall trees on a hill.  about a mile south there's a honking radio tower or something

Yea I flew there yesterday. Also being in the mountains even if you think you have the required rate you could hit downdrafts. There was a citation on the field and I don’t think I’d try that even in the citation (I believe it was a cj1 like I flew). I probably would in the king air. Not in the Mooney. Of course vfr is fine because you just dog leg between the hills. 

I flew the approach to 35 vfr and circled to 17.  I’ve had my Garmin cockpit for a few months and wanted to see if it gave me an advisory glide slope (it did).

Years ago I used to fly in there in a Cessna 140, of course always vfr. 

-Robert

[RobertGary1]

2 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

It's all the same thing--they don't have to be precise since it's all advisory anyway.  If they gave you instructions or limits on the approach plate, then they'd have to be precise about what they mean by "visual segment"

To me it just adds to the confusion that started this tread. Using the approach described in the aim would have been clear. For the same reason the faa nails controllers after an accident if they use non standard phraseology. 
If you’re thing me some part Is visual Id like to be clear exactly what part 

-Robert 

[jlunseth]

2 hours ago, PT20J said:

The visual segment of any approach is from the MAP/DA to touchdown.  Look at the first graphic I posted. 

I don’t disagree, but the old version of the RNAV 9 at KAFJ that is used as an example in the AIM had them as pretty much the same spot. The MAP was RWY 09. Now, there is a 556 foot altitude difference between the MDA and touchdown, so that would be visual, but I am pretty sure the FAA would require compliance with 91.175 once you are at the RWY and the MDA. I don’t think the label in that RNAV 9 that is in the AIM was meant to change the rules just for the short final descent from the touchdown end of the runway, to actual touchdown. 91.175 was expressly written to cover that descent.  I am going to guess that the FAA realized that, and cleaned up the approach plates in those instances, as they have the the actual RNAV 9 at KAJF (it has a solid level line for an undetermined distance before the RWY 9 waypoint once reaching MDA). The point is that they are not all drawn graphically the way the RNAV V RWY at Juneau is. 

Juneau is a pretty place by the way, the Red Dog is legendary, just be on your game if you are going to fly an approach there or pretty much anywhere in AK. I haven’t, I have just admired those who were doing it.