A Visual in IMC

Let's consider a situation. We are flying over the Florida Everglades in low IMC. Our alternator just died, which clearly counts as an emergency in IMC. So, we must land. Now! Wind is blowing from the west at 25 knots and we are close to Dade-Collier Transition and Training Airport (KTNT). Although it used to have three approaches to Runway 9-an ILS, an NDB and an RNAV-the only one now available is the RNAV (GPS) RWY 9 approach. With that wind, we certainly will not be landing on Runway 9, even though the runway is 10,500-feet long.

lbencini-tibo

Tuesday, September 03, 2019 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

There is a push to reduce high-risk circling approaches through more straight-in RNAV LPVs and new FAA policy, yet pilots are still required to be proficient in circling maneuvers.
In a severe in-flight emergency in IMC where conventional options are too dangerous, Garmin "G-Visual" approaches can provide un-surveyed lateral and vertical guidance to a runway.
G-Visuals are intended for VFR conditions, lack obstacle clearance surveying, and their use in IMC, even in an emergency, necessitates declaring an emergency under Part 91.3(b).

See a mistake? Contact us.

As you probably know, there have been two powerful forces that address the possibility of reducing but not eliminating circling approaches. First, that’s a good thing because circling approaches in low IMC are much higher risk than landing straight in. One force is the proliferation of straight-in RNAV (GPS) approaches to many runway thresholds, many of which can be flown to Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) ceiling and visibility minimums.

Secondly, there is a draft FAA policy issued on June 28, 2018, to reduce the number of standalone circling approaches and eliminate circling minimums on some straight-in approaches, particularly ILS and RNAV LPV approaches. The draft FAA policy makes it clear that the reduction of circling approaches is not part of the VOR minimum operating network (MON) initiative.