NP3A.COM

Date: January 12th, 2008 

Flight: TJSJ (San Juan, Puerto Rico) -> TUPJ (Beef Is., Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

Aircraft: Aerospatiale ATR72

Route: SJU RTE2 MALIE JANER BFI

Altitude: 7000

App: Visual RNW7

View: Cabin, Tower

Comments: 

Notes:

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

This flight generated a very instructive e-mail exchange with Mike Nowinski, the Virtual ATC heard in the video. The following are some excerpts from the e-mails.

Mike:

Glad to see you back at TJSJ scope!

As with all Caribbean Nights I had a lot of fun last night. Let me share with you some thoughts I had last night when approaching TUPJ (Beef). In real life, I have flown (as a passenger of course) TUPJ more than 20 times in the last two years doing business at that pretty island. I have noticed American Eagle ATR72 pilots uses two different approaches:

1. Following the southern shore line of Tortola
2. From JANER fly direct to TUPJ.

#1 above correlates with RNAV C , but not exactly as published. So I  assume when they are doing #1 they are following a combination of RNAV
C and Visual.

#2 is a very interesting approach. This is the one I did last night. They fly JANER and then fly between two hills (two hills in V shape, see attached). BTW that area between the two hills is called Little Dicks Road (hehe). As a passenger, you can see each hill at each side of the aircraft. This route between hills makes the Left Base for RNW7. However they can't see the runway nor field until clearing the  left hill. (The left hill blocks their line of sight) At that point the turn to final is started. This has to be a visual approach.

Yesterday, about 10nm you asked me if I had the field in sight. I responded no. At 5nm you asked again. At that point I had a dilemma. Technically, I didn't have the field in sight. However I know the field is there and once I clear the left hill, I will have the field and runway in sight. My rationale at that point was: If I answer no, may be I will be asked to execute an unnecessary go around. Also there was not enough time to explain why the aproach was going normal even  not having the field in sight at 2-3nm (or less). So decided to answer yes. But I left with a bad feeling about this. I think either answer, yes or no, will not be suitable. What would be the correct answer/action in that situation?

Hi Eric,

<...>

If I can give you a couple of pieces of information that you might already know:

IFR clearances are given for a couple of reasons.  It allows aircraft to fly in controlled airspace during inclement weather with aircraft separation provided by ATC.  It also gives the pilot a structured approach and landing plan that provides minimum terrain clearances.

So...when you were coming into TUPJ Friday, you were on an IFR clearance.  I had total control of your flight route and altitudes.  I asked you previously if you were going to fly one of the two NDB approaches and you replied basically .."weather looks good, so we'll proceed direct TUPJ from JANER and do the visual approach".  My WX indicated scattered clouds at 1800 which was a bit low for a visual approach at night, but as I saw in your video, you were actually flying in the daytime.  We will often let the pilot make a visual approach, wx permitting, if he requests it and traffic is not a problem as we never are really sure what his actual time of flight is.  One of the bugaboos in FS.

I then cleared you to 2100ft which is the minimum terrain clearance altitude indicated on the VFR chart for the TUPJ local area and asked that you report the field in sight.  This authorized you to descend to 2100ft at your discretion while looking for the field.  When you are flying an IFR flight, before I can give you clearance for the visual approach, you should either have the field in sight or, if there is one, a preceeding aircraft in sight that is also landing at the same airport.  You are correct, if you can't report it, you shouldn't attempt it.

I think that the aircraft you flew into TUPJ in real-life might have done something like this.  Assuming that it was VMC (VFR) conditions and they could maintain terrain clearance, they might have cancelled their IFR flightplan after JANER and continued VFR to make the approach to the left of Rogue's Point and over Little Dick's Road. Remember that when you are no longer on IFR, it is completely up to the pilot to "See and Avoid".  I could have done this for you if requested.

The other possibility was that they were on a VFR flight plan all the way from their departure airport.  Either way, they could have done what you did.

<...>

Again, thanks for the new perspective on TUPJ. 

<...>

Cheers,
Mike

Hi Mike.

<...>
So based on the information you provided, I should have asked for an "IFR cancellation" or "VFR approach" after JANER. But this brings another question. Does "Visual Approach" = "VFR Approach" ? I know VFR stands for Visual Flight Rules. I mean, when ATC clears me for a Visual Approach, that clearance does not necessarily means my IFR plan is cancelled?

<...>

News for me is the fact ATC is not able to see "pilot" time. Thanks for the information. From now on, I will include my time in the remarks. I typically do not flight in night time unless I can get an ILS approach. In my opinion, FSX does not simulate very well the nights. As a passenger I have noticed ground, lights and runways are lot clear in real life than in FSX. Also, I like to enjoy the sceneries. Thats why I fly 95% of the times during daytime, down or dusk. I hope, and I have not seen, any rule in VATSIM regarding flying in real time.

During my TUPJ flight on Friday, I remember my METAR showed  unlimited visibility (9999) and light showers. Don't remember the figure for the ceiling. Thats why I informed I preferred a Visual Approach. Im using Active Sky X and sometimes the ASX does not match VATSIM WX. I would like to fix that so the ATC 's and my wx are exactly the same.

Finally, going back to real-life flights to TUPJ, I have never seen a NDB or RNW27 approach (please refer to attached charts). All the times it has been the visual over Little Dicks Road or along the southern Tortola coastline. This last one looks like RNAV C but its like they use BEXAR (instead of OLARI) for the IAF. The fly between Tortola and St Johns (the big island SW of Tortola) to BEXAR.

Thanks again for the information and hope to see you soon again behind TJSJ scope.

Regards,

Eric G.

Correct procedure would have been request to cancel IFR (Flightplan).  You then could have proceeded under VFR's to make any landing you desired.

As I stated earlier, to be cleared for a "Visual" Approach on an IFR flightplan, you MUST have and keep the airport in sight at all times or a preceeding aircraft.  Clearance for the "Visual"  Approach does not cancel IFR Flightplan.

If flying on an IFR flightplan, a clearance for the "visual" approach is not the same as cancelling IFR flightplan.  Here is a copy of the FAA regs.

5-4-22. Visual Approach

a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.

If you were flying on under VFR, you could have done whatever you wish.  I would not be responsible for any terrain clearance instructions, nor would I have provided aircraft separation if needed.  Completely on your own within Visual Flight Rules.  That's the basic difference between cleared for a "Visual" Approach on an IFR flightplan and flying under VFR.
 

Cheers,
Mike