Comments on: IFR 12: DME Arcs http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz/2009/04/01/ifr-12-dme-arcs/ Software, aviation, electronics, economics, and other neat stuff. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:44:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: tangozulu http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz/2009/04/01/ifr-12-dme-arcs/#comment-837 tangozulu Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:46:28 +0000 http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz/2009/04/01/ifr-12-dme-arcs/#comment-837 I think the idea is that if you're doing an IFR approach to a pilot-controlled field, then no one is flying VFR. In IFR it's called a circling approach. Clearly this VFR/IFR seperation breaks down sometimes. In practice what I've seen is that incoming IFR pilots will break off their approach and join the downwind (or whatever) for landing in the pattern like VFR pilots are doing. This is one of the reasons that circling approaches are riskier than other approach types. If we'd had traffic for that flight, then that's what we would have done too. But we were alone at that field right then. I'm doing a lot of my IFR training at night - that helps for traffic conflicts. Your Canadian overhead entry is used in the US sometimes, but isn't commonly liked. As you say the US FAA encourages the 45 degree entry. I think the idea is that if you’re doing an IFR approach to a pilot-controlled field, then no one is flying VFR. In IFR it’s called a circling approach. Clearly this VFR/IFR seperation breaks down sometimes. In practice what I’ve seen is that incoming IFR pilots will break off their approach and join the downwind (or whatever) for landing in the pattern like VFR pilots are doing. This is one of the reasons that circling approaches are riskier than other approach types.

If we’d had traffic for that flight, then that’s what we would have done too. But we were alone at that field right then. I’m doing a lot of my IFR training at night - that helps for traffic conflicts.

Your Canadian overhead entry is used in the US sometimes, but isn’t commonly liked. As you say the US FAA encourages the 45 degree entry.

]]> By: viennatech http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz/2009/04/01/ifr-12-dme-arcs/#comment-834 viennatech Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:46:51 +0000 http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz/2009/04/01/ifr-12-dme-arcs/#comment-834 For your overhead, you circle down to 500' agl, cross the field then turn downwind but you are now 500' beneath the "regular" traffic? I have not seen that. Here in Canada we do not have the "standard 45" entry. For us a standard entry would involve crossing the field from the "upwind" side at TPA (1000' AGL) over the center of the runway then making a 90 degree turn to downwind. You would then perform a landing beginning from the abeam position. This works well as you are at the same alt as any other downwind traffic and it makes it eaasy to spot them. (and during your turn in makes it easy for them to spot you). I'm curious how this seperation is made if you have a 500' altitude difference. For your overhead, you circle down to 500′ agl, cross the field then turn downwind but you are now 500′ beneath the “regular” traffic? I have not seen that.
Here in Canada we do not have the “standard 45″ entry. For us a standard entry would involve crossing the field from the “upwind” side at TPA (1000′ AGL) over the center of the runway then making a 90 degree turn to downwind. You would then perform a landing beginning from the abeam position. This works well as you are at the same alt as any other downwind traffic and it makes it eaasy to spot them. (and during your turn in makes it easy for them to spot you). I’m curious how this seperation is made if you have a 500′ altitude difference.

]]>