Visual Area Protection

Visual area penetrations have become a challenging problem for the FAA, airports and pilots. First, keeping track of them can be a moving target. Then theres the conflict between the hazard of visual area obstacles and the safety benefit of using an advisory glidepath. Although weve covered various aspects of this topic in the April and July 2013 issues of IFR, recent changes could affect approaches you fly.

Editorial Staff

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

Visual area penetrations by obstacles are a significant safety concern on non-precision approaches, as advisory glidepaths do not guarantee obstacle clearance below the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA).
These penetrations result in penalties such as increased visibility minimums and night restrictions, particularly if unlit obstacles are present within the 20:1 obstacle identification surface.
The FAA has implemented new policies to manage 20:1 visual area penetrations, including a tiered response for airports, expanded waiver options utilizing VGSIs or category-specific evaluations, and the removal of some Vertical Descent Angles (VDAs) to prevent misuse, despite causing temporary avionics issues.
Pilots are ultimately responsible for obstacle clearance below MDA and must carefully consult approach charts for details on visual area restrictions and limitations.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Visual area penetrations have become a challenging problem for the FAA, airports and pilots. First, keeping track of them can be a moving target. Then there’s the conflict between the hazard of visual area obstacles and the safety benefit of using an advisory glidepath. Although we’ve covered various aspects of this topic in the April and July 2013 issues of IFR, recent changes could affect approaches you fly.