Airport in sight

Last summer, I took my Beechcraft Bonanza, Niky, down to New Orleans for a few days of fun, great music, and Cajun cuisine. Except for a few deviations around summertime cells, the flight was smooth, and Lakefront Airport (NEW) was reporting visual conditions. But a couple minutes later, ATC prompted again, “Lakefront Airport one o’clock, eight miles, advise in sight.” I knew where the airport should be, but searching through a hazy sky before a setting sun made the task of seeing it especially challenging. Still, I felt silly. And I confess that my response, “Lakefront in sight,” stretched the truth a bit.

I flew to New Orleans on an instrument flight plan, but given the reported weather conditions, I accepted a visual approach clearance, as I felt confident that I’d see the airport. Fortunately, I loaded the ILS approach to Runway 18R anyway which painted an approach course that directed me toward the correct runway. I turned the airplane toward the west to intercept the lateral guidance before BOGLY and put Niky in the landing configuration for the last part of the approach. My visual clearance allowed me to choose a steeper descent profile. Doing so guaranteed that I could still glide to the airport should Niky suffer an engine anomaly as I approached over Lake Pontchartrain. Blending IFR and VFR procedures can offer the best of both worlds.

IFR procedures are designed to guide pilots through the departure, enroute and approach phases with comfortable terrain and obstacle clearance since visual references cannot be used in instrument meteorological conditions. But using IFR procedures can also help VFR pilots form a safe plan from takeoff to touchdown.While it may be tempting  to avoid terrain using only visual cues, our senses can deceive us.

I recently planned a flight from Lewiston, Idaho (LWS), to Missoula, Montana (MSO), on a warm summer day. The departure airport sits at 1,442 feet msl but is nestled among terrain that pushes the surrounding maximum elevation figures (MEFs) on the sectional chart to over 7,000 feet msl. MEFs can provide precious obstacle and terrain clearance, and IFR routing provides a safe altitude for crossing the impressive mountains between Lewiston and Missoula. The highest minimum enroute altitude (MEA) along V187 that connects the Nez Perce VOR (MQG) and the Missoula VOR (MSO) is 13,000 feet. Although RNAV-equipped aircraft like Niky can take advantage of the lower 9,800-foot RNAV/GPS MEA, I chose to overfly the mountains above the 13,000-foot MEA for increased options should an engine anomaly occur. And I always bring supplemental oxygen for flight above 9,000 feet.

With a route chosen, the best way to climb from Lewiston’s 1,442 feet up to 13,500 feet along V187 and over the mountains to the east wasn’t immediately clear. Fortunately, the POTOR 2 departure procedure at LWS provided a recipe for safe departure and specified the required performance to ensure Niky was up to the mission.

Winds from the west meant that using the longer Runway 26 made sense. The required climb gradient is 300 feet per nautical mile to 4,700 feet msl. That may not seem like much, but considering that I like to use a cruise climb of 120 KIAS, which corresponded to 132 KTAS on that day, Niky would need a 660-foot-per-minute climb rate. Although the day was warm, with just two people and bags in the airplane, the POH predicted a robust 1,100 foot-per minute climb rate. And the westerly winds were sure to improve the climb gradient while heading west.

After takeoff, the plan was to turn to a heading of 200 degrees to intercept V187 to reach POTOR, 12 miles from the airport. With the required climb gradient, Niky should be above 5,000 feet by the time we reached POTOR. Turning east along V187 ensured the airplane would be well above the initial RNAV MEA of 6,100 feet when passing MQG VOR.

It was finally time to consider the transition from the enroute phase to a landing at Missoula. Without an arrival procedure into MSO, a carefully chosen instrument approach procedure can provide courses and altitudes toward a VFR pattern entry. For example, with southerly winds, descending to 12,000 feet, then to 10,500 feet along the MSO 25 DME arc, and then turning inbound and descending to pattern altitude along the localizer course (while staying above the vertical guidance) to Runway 12 provided a clear, safe path to enter the pattern at Missoula.

While this flight planning might seem like overkill for a flight in VMC, waiting to figure out the plan in the air can end badly. In July 2021, two pilots departed Aspen, Colorado, (ASE) for Des Moines, Iowa, (DSM) in a normally aspirated Beechcraft Bonanza. The density altitude that evening was 10,500 feet. When the controller issued an IFR clearance including the LINDZ departure and instructions to climb to 16,000 feet and expect 17,000 feet shortly after departure, the pilots chose to refuse the clearance and avoid terrain visually. When the controller queried them on their route, one pilot responded, “We’re going to make that decision once we take off, actually, and once we see what’s going on.” After two circles over the airport to gain what they deemed a sufficient altitude to cross terrain to the east, they pointed the Bonanza between ridges toward the east-southeast. As the terrain below them rose faster than their climb rate, the clearance between the ridges narrowed. Ultimately, their only option was to perform a 180-degree canyon turn, but they made that decision too late; both pilots perished when the aircraft impacted terrain. For an excellent review of this accident, see the AOPA Air Safety Institute’s Accident Case Study: Into Thin Air. While it may be tempting to avoid terrain using only visual cues, our senses can deceive us. It’s better to form a plan and verify that it works during the preflight preparation on the ground.

Using IFR tools for flying in visual conditions, of course, necessitates understanding how to use them safely and effectively. PilotWorkshops offers a course called "IFR Skills for VFR Flying" in which accomplished instructor Ryan Koch presents illustrative scenarios that offer more detailed and nuanced advice than can fit here. It’s a great place to start, and pilots can use them as a springboard for discussions with an experienced instrument instructor.

My hope is that incorporating IFR tools into VFR flights will encourage pilots to pursue an instrument rating or perhaps knock the rust off their instrument skills. The resources and techniques prove valuable for any cross-country flight.

airsafetyinstitute.org/ACS/IntoThinAir