From: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/05/fire_plane030905
Why would restricted airspace make the pilot fly VFR? The only reason I can think of is that if he shot an ILS approach, that could have taken him over the aforementioned restricted airspace?
Any other reason?
IANAPilot.
If the restricted airspace included airspace normally used for an instrument landing, then a visual approach would be required…since using the instruments would take the airplane where it shouldn’t go.
My guess is that he was still technically IFR but with the airport, albeit the wrong one, in sight he was executing a visual approach. The Big Guys, as far as I know, are always operating IFR. That doesn’t mean they ain’t looking out the windscreen, though.
When you land on instruments, you follow an approach plate (read: chart) that has fairly detailed instructions on how to make your approach, and how to execute a go-around if you blow your approach.
I would imagine that either the approach or the go-around procedures, as printed on the plates, would transit the restricted airspace, thus making VFR preferable.
I am a pilot, and I figure Jake’s probalby right.
An “Instrument approach” is a procedure for the time between the transit phase between airports, and the final approach to landing. It refers to both a path over the ground flown with respect to a specific navigational aid, and to the sequence of actions and control inputs the pilot makes in the cockpit.
At airports which have instrument approaches, they’re standard. In aviation terms, they’re ‘published approaches’ which means the details of the approach, the navigational aid involved, and special conditions, etc. are included in a manual called the ‘Canada Air Pilot’. I’ve got the one for Quebec right here.
Now, you don’t want to fly through thick smoke, and you’re not allowed to fly over forest fires, so if the smoke or the fire is on the path of the published approach, you can’t use the approach. And you’re not allowed to fly into the airport on instruments unless you use the published approach. So, you have to switch over to visual references, and fly in that way.
It’s a rule designed to keep planes safe. It’s known that the published approach keeps airplanes clear of ‘obstacles’ (towers, mountains, buildings) and allows a certain descent angle, and is generally safe. But if pilots flew into the field from any direction, along any path, and didn’t look outside, they could easily get in trouble. So, if the published approach is unavailable, like if the navigational beacon is offline, or if the runway that has the approach is under repair, or if there’s a forest fire under the approach, then the pilots don’t have the luxury of coming in on instruments.
FWIW, the restricted airspace was probably not due to smoke in the area. After all, what good is an instrument approach if it can’t take you through obscuring conditions.
I’d bet the temporary restriction was for firefighting air ops in the vicinity. A friend of mine flew tankers in Montana and IIRC said they would have sirspace restrictions for their ops.
sirspace: The area of respect given to a man in a suit of armor.
I am an instrument rated pilot (recreational). To add a little to wolfstu’s info - you should be aware that you can be on an instrument flight plan and still be authorized to execute a visual approach in good weather. In other words, you don’t have to be given a specific procedure to land. (see “visual approach” at this link )
Now, in this particular situation, the fire and restricted airspace may have prevented one or more approaches from being used, but as long as the weather was good, I don’t see how that would matter one way or the other. If the weather was bad enough to require an instrument approach, then the pilot should have been on that particular approach, and not flying a visual approach.
If he lined up on the wrong airport, I’m guessing the weather was pretty good. So, I really don’t see how the restriction played a role in this scenario.
To address the OP directly, restricted airspace cannot “make” the pilot fly VFR. You have to be able to see where you’re going in order to operate safely and legally. If an IFR approach were necessary, but unavailable due to the restrictions, you’d have to go somewhere else.
I am a commercial pilot, but not in the airlines. One other example of this kind of thing happening:
After 9-11, The airspace around Camp David was expanded. The expansion suddenly intruded into the approach path for the ILS approach at Hagerstown, MD. So until that prohibited space was reduced in size, it was not possible to shoot an ILS there at all.
At least in the US, (I assume Canada is the same in this respect), any airline operation has to be on instrument rules until it is on the ground. So it would not be operating VFR, merely executing a visual procedure, still under IFR.
It may seem odd, but I have known a number of airline pilots that are so rusty with certain visual procedures, they get confused if they don’t have their instruments.
The article said that “there was some restricted airspace close to the airport and that precluded the full procedures in the instrument approach.” This could mean a couple different things. If the restricted area was only under the area for the procedure turn, then a straight-in approach could have been executed. There could be other options for being vectored onto final approach also.
My reading of the article is that the pilots made a bonehead move, and didn’t have the guts to ask for vectors.
I am an airline pilot, and what’s been said so far is essentially correct. Here’s a little extra info, though.
First of all, you can do a “visual approach” while flying IFR. The controller has to offer it and you have to accept it (normally by calling the airport in sight) but you remain under IFR control during the approach. When the weather is nice, it’s visuals all around: it’s easier on the controllers and on us.
The restricted airspace mentioned in the link was most likely due to firefighting aircraft in the area, as mentioned by MonkeyMensch. If this airspace was on or near the final approach course of a runway, it would preclude instrument approaches being flown. When being vectored for an instrument approach the controller must turn you onto the final approach course at least three miles prior to the final approach fix…this means that you must be lined up on final as far as seven miles from the airport. With a visual approach all you have to do is see the airport, and line up on final when you want to…even as close in as 1/2 mile from the runway. If the restricted airspace in the article was at, say, five miles from the runway then the only way in would be with a visual approach. If, as ** RotorHead ** mentioned the airspace interfered with the procedure turn the result would be the same: you can’t fly the procedure, and you can’t get vectored on to final.
However, just because you can’t legally fly the IAP (Instrument Approach Procedure) doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t tune up the navaids to verify that you have the correct airport in sight. Whenever I fly a visual approach I use the ILS, localizer or VOR as a backup to make sure I’m lined up on the right runway. What these guys should have done was dial up the ILS and make sure that the airport they SAW was the one they WANTED. ATC might not be able to clear you for the ILS, but if the ILS is working you should have it dialed up to prevent just such an incident as this.
And for the record, airlines in the US can and do operate under VFR. Sometimes small airports have towers that close too early or don’t open early enough for the scheduled flight. At larger airports the commuters sometimes depart VFR and make a quick getaway under the Class B airspace.
And yes, the bottom line is these guys made a bonehead move, restricted airspace or not.