ILS RUNWAY 22 APPROACH LGA

[air727]

The ILS 22 approach for LGA has aircraft at or above 3 until yomen, which can identified by 10.8 dme or the radial off of deer prk.

Okay that's all given info.

However, if aircraft are on the visual for 22 and on the downwind leg, are they still kept above 3000 until yomen and proceed from that point. I have seen aircraft that don't appear to be at 3 but rather 2500 possibly.

I will wind up listening to atc anyway but let me know what you guys think about this.

Adam

[KSYR-pjr]

Until someone with working knowledge of that specific sector chimes in (probably Jason, who is Mr NYC ATC himself ), I will point out a generality about this question.

Typically a crossing restriction on a published ILS approach is there for either obstacle clearance or because there is lower traffic routing. 

If at LGA the reason for the restriction is due to obstacle clearance, then normally a visual approach will not contain the same restriction since a visual approach shifts the responsibility of obstacle avoidance to the pilot(s).

[Jason]

The minimum altitude of 3,000 feet at YOMAN most likely exists so aircraft on the approach intercept below the glideslope, but you'd have to ask the procedure designer for an exact answer.

Since aircraft on a visual aren't required to follow the glideslope, a lower altitude can be issued (above the MVA) which still ensures obstacle clearance, though the aircraft is technically and legally responsible for avoiding terrain on a visual approach.

[air727]

So  then I am presuming it's 1000 feet above the highest obstacle which is the norm for VFR. Byw. isn't it MSA that ensures obstacle clearance.  In this case the MSA is 2800 according to the plate.

It's been awhile for me. Haven't flown since my days at Westair at HPN.

A

[KSYR-pjr]

So  then I am presuming it's 1000 feet above the highest obstacle which is the norm for VFR. Byw. isn't it MSA that ensures obstacle clearance.  In this case the MSA is 2800 according to the plate.

Once a visual approach is issued, there are no minimum altitudes per se because the aircraft is landing.  Landing aircraft obviously cannot adhere to 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle.

The altitude prior to receiving a visual would be most likely the MVA, or minimum vectoring altitude (an altitude typically not published anywhere a pilot can browse), as Jason pointed out.  The MVA is the lowest a controller can allow an aircraft to descend during the en route phase of IFR flight.

I have requested to fly at the MVA to escape ice in the Northeast US a few times, but the MVA can vary greatly across a controller's sector and several ascents or descents when flying at MVA are common.

[Jason]

Once a visual approach is issued, there are no minimum altitudes per se because the aircraft is landing.  Landing aircraft obviously cannot adhere to 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle.

The altitude prior to receiving a visual would be most likely the MVA, or minimum vectoring altitude (an altitude typically not published anywhere a pilot can browse), as Jason pointed out.  The MVA is the lowest a controller can allow an aircraft to descend during the en route phase of IFR flight.

I have requested to fly at the MVA to escape ice in the Northeast US a few times, but the MVA can vary greatly across a controller's sector and several ascents or descents when flying at MVA are common.

Also note that MVA's also exist and apply in the terminal radar environment.  As Peter pointed out, MVA's vary and are typically unpublished so pilots generally cannot view them.  I can upload the A90 (Boston TRACON) MVA chart later when I'm on my home computer.

[air727]

I am not so sure about that. If the aircraft is on the downwind leg and on the visual, he still has the responsibility to remain at an appropriate altitude before landing.

[KSYR-pjr]

I am not so sure about that. If the aircraft is on the downwind leg and on the visual, he still has the responsibility to remain at an appropriate altitude before landing.

There is no appropriate altitude when landing.  For proof of this (in the US) take a look at circling minimums on an ILS approach plate for your favorite airport.  Often times a circling minimum might be  500-700 feet AGL, well below a "recommended" traffic pattern altitude for VFR aircraft.

edit:  Circling, as you may know, might require a complete trip around an improvised pattern to land at a specific runway.

[KSYR-pjr]

Whoops, I now regret using "appropriate," since one of the many uses of the word "appropriate" would be "safe" and safety, especially in a single engine aircraft, should be considered by the pilot. 

Better would have been, "there is no regulated altitude when landing on a visual approach."

[air727]

I don't want to beat this to death, but aircraft on the downwind leg are not usually cleared to land unless it's so slow that they can swing the aircraft around and head straight for the numbers.  Sometimes they're told to follow traffic in front of them. Therefore, they need to be at their assigned altitude until they GET their clearance. Before that, minimums should apply. Thus, when a visual approach is assigned this is not a clearance to land.

[KSYR-pjr]

Thus, when a visual approach is assigned this is not a clearance to land.

That's correct.  A visual approach is an approach clearance, not a landing clearance.   The approach controller normally issues the approach clearance and tower issues the clearance to land.