Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review/Instrument approach
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I have been editing the instrument approach article and despite updating factual data and adding references, I have run into a problem with the definition of an instrument approach. If any aviation subject matter experts can help comment on my issue, I would appreciate it greatly!
Of course, the FARs and AIM clearly defines an Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP), but does not define instrument approach; that term says “see IAP,” which defines it as: "A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually."
Strictly using that definition would mean that that precision and nonprecision approaches are the only two types of instrument approaches.
However, there is a debate within the aviation community that an instrument approach is any approach that is available to an aircraft operating under an IFR flight plan. This interpretation would permit a third type of approach, the visual approach category, including visual approaches, contact approaches, circle-to-land approaches, side-step approaches, etc. Each of these are (a) only available to IFR flight plans, (b) are often a requirement of nonprecision IAPs (i.e. "alpha approaches") and precision IAPs (ILS approach to runway, then circle-to-land on another).
So my questions:
- Should these visual approaches be included in the definition of instrument approaches (agreed that they are not IAPs, but are IAs)?
- If not, how can they be addressed in the current article?
- If they are addressed in this article, should it be retiled something like "Instrument Flight Rules Approaches," having other approach sites redirect to that new title and/or merging the articles?
- Any other ideas?
I thought that Instrument Approaches were cut and dry, but by interpretation, it gets complicated!
Thanks, Captjosh (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call myself an "aviation subject matter expert", but I'm going to throw my $.02 worth in anyway...
- I think that there is no need to change the IAP definition, nor to open the can of worms about a separate IA definition (nor title change, etc) - since the definition includes the phrase "a point from which a landing may be made visually", it already introduces the concept of visual approaches. Rather than making a definitive statement of whether or not a visual approach is an instrument approach, which can be argued both ways and comes down in the end to opinion, I would think that it makes the most sense to simply cover visual approaches as a separate section under the main article (as opposed to just listed under concepts as it is now).
- I personally think that visual approaches are not instrument approaches in the true sense, but rather are relaxations of the rules whereby an IFR flight in VMC may exercise some of the freedom of VFR without having to cancel the IFR. Since they are only available in VMC (or close to it, since strictly speaking a circling approach may be marginal due to airspace designation), they can hardly be called an instrument approach, but rather are more of an instrument transition (i.e. transition from VFR to IFR).
- Hope that helps
- HiFlyChick (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- My instrument ground school said this about instrument approaches when I was prepping for my written exam almost 40 years ago:
- Instrument Approach
- An approach to an airport for the purpose of landing that is conducted solely by reference to the aircraft's own instruments or by receiving guidance provided from a ground based precision approach radar system in conjunction with the aircraft's own instruments. Once visual contact with the ground is attained, an instrument approach becomes a visual approach.
- Buster40004 Regards, Terry 03:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)