Visual Approaches in Transport Jets - are they appropriate?

[Bradley Marsh]

Hello All,

Here at PB, we are now operating the 737-800 domestically within New Zealand. We are doing 5 sector days and there is of course pressure to meet OTP etc. There is an established practice within NZ of conducting visual approaches in pax carrying jet transports.

I would like to ask your opinions on the safety of conducting visual approaches.

What do you feel the benefit of a visual approach v. a full Instrument Approach would be and does it justify teh additional risks - what do you think those risks are?

Rgds,

Brad Marsh

[Spooky 2]

You must be kidding. Certainly visual appraoches can be conducted safely in good weather and with minimal traffic congestion. Having said that you might be surprised at how many pilots have difficulty when turned lose on their own to get the airplane on the ground safely.

[Bradley Marsh]

<QUOTE>
Having said that you might be surprised at how many pilots have difficulty when turned lose on their own to get the airplane on the ground safely.
<UNQUOTE>

That is why I ask the question :8

Anyone can fly a visual approach .. it is how we start our flying of course and I love doing them in my Pitts.

My point is that does the shorter track distance, perhaps increased number of runway movements (although I think Heathrow and others do pretty well anyway) and shorter flight times warrant discarding all we have learned about approach and landing accident prevention (primarily through use of Constant Descent, Runway Aligned Approaches = ILS or perhaps VNAV for anyone on a modern machine)

This is a question of cost benefit I guess. Here in NZ a lot of guys arriving at Auckland for RWY23L ask for a Visual App and are cleared for same but must be established on final inside 3DME. The VOR/DME is pretty close to the threshold. I see a lot of guys turn through final, use high descent rates etc - it ain't pretty and I ask - what's the point?

[haughtney1]

In a word "yes"
Visuals into NZAA, WLG, and CH are not particularly risky, and in a smaller jet like a 737-800 far more workable...as long as the traffic/weather permits (so pretty much most days!).
As long as you plan your visual descent point, know the terrain, and are stable by 1000' AAL..500' worst case, its all gravy:E
FWIW..I reckon there isn't enough emphasis placed on the visual approach these days:ok:

[Ipaq]

Here in Europe, flying the A320/A321, we regularly go to "small" airports at holiday destinations where there's no radar but in the summer, 95% of the time it's CAVOK - we do visual approaches: they are taught and practiced in the sim regularly and just require us to stable by 500'aal, otherwise it's a mandatory go-around - never presented any problems.
I aso mixed fleet fly on the A330 as well and we do them on that in the Caribbean!

[tom775257]

How/why would a visual approach be dangerous? Only if you are bad at flying visual approaches, same could be said of non-prec approaches too surely.

At my base airport when a certain runway is in use I will generally knock off the automatics (A320), use the bird and hand fly a visual circuit from early downwind (subject to weather, which is 95% clear skies, calmish wind). This means I probably hand fly a visual approach A320 at least once a week.

I mostly keep autothrust in which increases safety I think.

The risks IMHO are 1) people who never fly them! 2) Not watching airspeed. 3) Not watching bank angle 4)Misjudging rate of descent on base/final and turn to final 5)Misjudging vertical profile overall. 6) Flying in bad viz/Wx in general 7) Flying in heavy traffic 8) Flying with tricky terrain.

The main benefit is surely going to be reduced time/fuel burn.

The IVSI is your friend!! The best hint I was given, which I still use, is just keep my left nut on the centre-line on approach. It works a treat.

[Sleeve Wing]

Yeh, Brad.

Nothing like positioning high downwind over the sea at Paphos and disengaging all the automatics.
Follow this with a nice curved approach to intercept at about 3 miles and stabilise for 5-600ft.
Saves stacks of time and the passengers apparently love it 'cos they can see the airport most of the time.

Keeps the handling skills up to speed as well. Nothing wrong with it at all.


Doesn't anybody actually fly any more ? :cool: :ok:

[flyer75]

Flying an airbus manually that sounds funny to me but keeping the A/T ON on top of it ..THAT makes me laugh..
Many times below RVSMs A/P off,FDs OFF and for sure A/T off....routing use progress page for lateral deviation check and then when vectored the old good way:-)
Oh yes sorry 737 ng;-)

[hoggsnortrupert]

By day not a problem.
By night-another issue altogether, as I have noticed over the years this causes more concern.
Chr's
H/Snort.

[Aviator_IT]

If CAVOK, and traffic permits, pilots really don't want to go over the boring ILS procedure, which takes longer time = more fuel.

if good condition, any pilot will ask for visual, which is not problem at all.

[tom775257]

Flyer 75: Well, I do fly it FDs/AP/AT off regularly and that is just thanks to a chief pilot that believes in the basics - certainly many UK airlines have banned flying in this manner, I know autothrust off would get me sacked at many airlines in the world (Airbus).

It should surely never be a competition to who can knock the most autos off. It should surely be only a challenge getting the aircraft most expeditiously, most fuel efficiently and above all else most safely onto the runway - and if it helps keep your raw skills up, then that is a bonus.

Why the hell do we need a lat/vert deviation check for a visual approach! (with predictable caveat).

Certainly autothrust off is very easy in average weather so long as you know you pitch/power settings - and I hope even those Airbus pilots know the figures

[Ipaq]

What's the problem flyer - yes, we also take out all the automatics, including the A/THR at times and fly visually using raw data : in fact in our company we practice manual handling skills in the sim for about an hour once a year; in addition to the standard LPC/OPC.

[SEV]

I think depend on quite factors:
I usually fly in CAVOK airports with schedule flights carrying passengers.I think in Ryanair Vissual approaches are forbidden so in this case I think is a good election.
In my case I usually fly into Canaries, I know all airports very well so I often make a visual approach when the weather is good. But for other hand if I go to unknown airport and the weather is ok, I would prefer radar vectors to intercept the final leg.
Cheers!

[Bradley Marsh]

Thanks All for your replies.

If we might just have a look at:
<QUOTE>

The risks IMHO are 1) people who never fly them! 2) Not watching airspeed. 3) Not watching bank angle 4)Misjudging rate of descent on base/final and turn to final 5)Misjudging vertical profile overall. 6) Flying in bad viz/Wx in general 7) Flying in heavy traffic 8) Flying with tricky terrain.

The main benefit is surely going to be reduced time/fuel burn.

<UNQUOTE>

Each of these are clear risk factors and are identified in the FSF ALAR (Flight Safety Foundation Approach and Landing Accident Reduction) project. Each of these risk factors is easily mitigated by flying a Terminal Approach Radar monitored autocoupled ILS or at worst a VNAV straight-in approach.

The benefit of reduced time/fuel needs to be assayed against the increase risk of an unstabilised approach and resultant Go Around. There are also question about designing SOPs for a Visual Approach .. what are the standard calls, what are the trigger points for gear/flap, how do we tell when the guy flying it needs some support etc?

What I am getting at is that as professional aviators charged with a lot of responsibility we are expected to provide maximum affordable safety at all times and I, personally, am not convinced of the cost benefit of visual approaches, particularly non-runway-aligned when there is a proven safer alternative available for the sake of a few SOPs, briefing and setup of the cockpit for an Instrument Approach.

The argument of maintaining the ability to hand fly a no FD A/T visual approach for the vanishingly small chance of a total EFIS failure seems, to me, false economy.

My company forbids turning the FD off under normal operations unless rearming it when visual on a non precision approach.

I won't start in about the new crop of very low time chaps we have coming into the RHS these days as I expect every jet pilot to meet the standard and that should include the ability to hand fly a raw data visual approach - but that is what the sim is for.

It is good to see chaps involved in a frank exchange of views on an interesting topic.

All The Best,

Brad

[stator vane]

just joking!!

our airline, with a slight blue tint flying out of STN, deem it to be rocket science and we have to DOUBLE BRIEF!!!!!

my god, we have to say it twice---

they actually discourage it.

[Telstar]

I think in Ryanair Vissual approaches are forbidden so in this case I think is a good election.

Not true. Night time visual approaches are severely restricted however, and are essentially banned.

[zerozero]

Here's another vote against night time visuals.

I don't like them unless I've got pretty specific conditions: Full moon. Approach over water. Fresh snow on the ground w/ full moon. Very familiar with local area, etc...

[haughtney1]

Bradley, I wonder if you are missing the point?
The benefit of reduced time/fuel needs to be assayed against the increase risk of an unstabilised approach and resultant Go Around. There are also question about designing SOPs for a Visual Approach .. what are the standard calls, what are the trigger points for gear/flap, how do we tell when the guy flying it needs some support etc?

A visual approach is a reasonable level of risk to assume, as long as certain parameters are met...which of course depends on your own company specific SOP's, and how you apply them.
My present employer, as well as the previous one, assess a visual approach as a perfectly acceptable method for the flightcrew to get their respective aircraft onto the runway in a safe efficient fashion.
What I am getting at is that as professional aviators charged with a lot of responsibility we are expected to provide maximum affordable safety at all times and I, personally, am not convinced of the cost benefit of visual approaches, particularly non-runway-aligned when there is a proven safer alternative available for the sake of a few SOPs, briefing and setup of the cockpit for an Instrument Approach.
Far be it for me to question your own personal stand point, suffice to say however, I suspect that there are a great many who do not share your viewpoint.
The argument of maintaining the ability to hand fly a no FD A/T visual approach for the vanishingly small chance of a total EFIS failure seems, to me, false economy.
Yet Bradley, that risk does exist..so in essense you are removing that link in the error/event chain that could prevent a negative outcome.
Finally
I won't start in about the new crop of very low time chaps we have coming into the RHS these days as I expect every jet pilot to meet the standard and that should include the ability to hand fly a raw data visual approach - but that is what the sim is for.
Perhaps Bradley, your opinion is coloured somewhat by your present operational environment (and I'm a transplanted Kiwi who now flys in Europe)......if that opinion/idea was promulgated here, a great many heavy jet operators would be unable to service certain destinations with any regularity..as you probably know.
On the other extreme, you have the USA where ATC will quite happily clear you for a visual approach...and clear you to land...with 3 or 4 aircraft ahead of you:eek:

[Gargleblaster]

Aren't we forgetting traffic separation ? When VFR in a control zone here in Denmark (and I guess elsewhere) all you get is traffic information !

As a pax I wouldn't feel comfortable in the back of a 737 with the PF using half of her mental energy trying to spot and avoid two or five C172s in the pattern.

As a private pilot, I am sometimes busy enough trying to spot AC that the TWR has informed me of.

Or am I missing something ?

[Chilli Monster]

Aren't we forgetting traffic separation ? When VFR in a control zone here in Denmark (and I guess elsewhere) all you get is traffic information !

As a pax I wouldn't feel comfortable in the back of a 737 with the PF using half of her mental energy trying to spot and avoid two or five C172s in the pattern.

Or am I missing something ?

Yes - you are. A visual approach does not mean VFR. The flight rules don't change, and you can still be IFR, even if the pilot has decided he can approach visually. As such the standard separation rules decided by the airspace still apply.

[brain fade]

I'm not sure how many ppruners will agree with me here, but I feel that if you can't fly your a/c on to the runway visually, you have no business in the cockpit.

Yes, I know 'piloting' skills are not the whole job nowadays, but you are paid to fly and putting the a/c neatly on the runway- any runway- once you can see it, is a basic skill that must be in every pilots repertoire.

Frankly, as someone hinted earlier, the more you do, the easier they are.:ok:

[judge11]

Brainfade - I'm in complete agreement with you. If a professional pilot is incapable of managing his/her aircraft in terms of configuration, speed and approach profile achieved by the mark one eye ball talking directly to the hands and feet via the grey bit between the ears he/she really should not be at the pointy end.

As you rightly say, practise does make perfect as does good instruction in the first place. I've been surprised (and shocked) by the extreme reluctance of some FOs to disconnect the automatics and simply fly the aircraft. Conversely, there have been some who are all too ready to 'pole' it under inappropriate situations. As with most things in avaition there is a time and place for most things and visual approaches ceratinly have their place.

[Capn Bloggs]

Quite apart from the technical proficiency that a pilot should have to be able to do a visual approach (especially with the aids in the cockpits of the latest jets), we should be, environmentally, cutting as many track miles off each flight as possible. That means a visual base join at 3nm instead of 8nm final/arc or a downwind join instead of way out over the top wasting dinosaurs.

[bubbers44]

What a simple way to end a flight, a visual approach. Why would anybody refuse it?

[Mr Ree]

Because a lot of 'pilots' out there can't.
In fact, a lot of 'pilots' can't even manage an approach from TOD without total reliance on the FMGC.
I sometimes wonder why they got into aviation in the first place. Deep down it must be terrifying for them.

[Tee Emm]

My company forbids turning the FD off under normal operations unless rearming it when visual on a non precision approach

The FD is purely an aid to navigation - it is not the be all and end all of flight safety. There are those that insist on use of the MAP mode at all times even though an EHSI will give you far more reliable navigation information. The MAP is very pretty of course but so is a WAC series chart which is basically what the MAP mode represents. I was surprised recently to read that Alteon in Brisbane rely so much on automatics during endorsement training that most landings are auto-land despite the fact that 98% of landings in Australia are manual. This policy ill equips new pilots to learn how to fly a 737 in the real world.

It is good to read in these pages that there are operators out there that actually encourage their crews to keep fully current at manual no FD and no AT approaches and landings. These are the safe pilots when the chips are down in contrast to the automatic monkeys who rely blindly on the automatics because they sadly lack the basic skills to fly an aeroplane. The Garuda 737 fatal over-run is a case in point.

[sabenaboy]

Well, I sure am glad that I fly for a company that allows and encourages manual raw data app's and visual landings! It's just a matter of company culture.
In my company every new guy (or girl) will be happy to handfly the A320 without A/T, A/P or F/D once line-training is completed. That's the way it should be. (Most of them start training on the A320 freshly out of flight academy with around 300 hrs total time) We'll fly visual app's whenever it's appropriate and possible to do so. That's where pilot judgement comes in!

So I (and my colleagues) switch off the automatics whenever the conditions permit to do so. We'll leave the A/P on when there's a good reason to do so. (Weather, traffic density, fatigue...)

I can assure you that no-one in my company worries about handflying a single-engine ILS app. with all automatics switched off during the SIM-checks. Oh, and yes, "my" company has an excellent safety record!

Regards,
Sabenaboy

[brain fade]

Judge 11

Dead on.

What really hacks me off is arriving at your destination in CAVOK and 100 miles vis, to find everyone busy doing the bleeding ILS!

Think of all that wasted time/fuel/ money!

They should take up knitting!:rolleyes::ugh:;)

[Pilot Pete]

I won't start in about the new crop of very low time chaps we have coming into the RHS these days as I expect every jet pilot to meet the standard and that should include the ability to hand fly a raw data visual approach - but that is what the sim is for. Bradley mate, your opinion seems naiive. How can you expect the 'new' F/O to get any good at visual approaches if they only ever do one or two every six months in the sim, which is usually pretty hopeless for real visuals as you can't see the runway until on a true base leg?

Every pilot meets the basic requirements laid down by their regulatory authority in order to keep the type useable on their licence. But that is merely scratching the surface, a good pilot means to be able to do much more than the basic required standard and that comes with experience and time on type. Fly one visual approach every six months and I bet they are no good at visual approaches, fly them whenever the operation permits (wx, environment, crew etc) and they will soon get much better at them.

Any company that makes blanket rules about not hand flying the aircraft is storing up future problems and links in error chains. Take a look at your MEL once in a while and see what automatics not working constitute no-go items, better still, see when they don't! That day is not the day to 'wonder' how to fly the a/c to TOC, in the cruise and from TOD without said automatics.

PP

[eight16kreug]

A full ILS approach adds about seven minutes to a straight in visual. Think of all the wasted time, fuel, money for the company. But also think of all the additional pay time for the pilots.

Sometimes the stated reason for a full ILS - Safety - is just an excuse to bring home more moolah at the end of the month.:ok:

[Mercenary Pilot]

But also think of all the additional pay time for the pilots.Who gets paid by the hour? Aren't most of us on salary + sector pay?

[captjns]

And how did we land a C-152 or PA28... oops I mean a light twin (since we are talking about the Boeing Tiwn Trainer) without instrument landing aids?

[Pilot Pete]

A full ILS approach adds about seven minutes to a straight in visual. Not sure how you worked that one out. If you planned on a 'straight in', then you are going to follow the the same ground track as if you flew the ILS. The only time it is going to save is if you DON'T fly a straight in, i.e. you approach from any direction other then the extended localiser centreline.

In that case, if you shortened your route appropriately in the FMC, the most you are going to save is about 8-10nm from joining downwind and turning base to accomplish a 4nm final as opposed to flying all the way out to fly the ILS from about an 8nm final. In effect what you have done is shortened your cruise segment by descending earlier to be lower than the full ILS platform. Bearing in mind you will be doing something like 7nm/min in the cruise I think you can see that you will not save anything like 7 minutes by taking a visual.

If you planned on the full procedure and were offered a visual from abeam, you will be too high to just turn in so will end up going further downwind having slowed down and taken some flap and gear (earlier than normal to get the height off) and will be able to turn in earlier than for the full ILS, but the saving is going to be minimal.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for appropriate visual approaches, but let's not exaggerate the true savings.

Sometimes the stated reason for a full ILS - Safety - is just an excuse to bring home more moolah at the end of the month. Don't know what pilots you know, but I don't know ANY who would opt for a full procedure to get more pay! Even if you get duty pay by the hour, the extra minute or two is peanuts and most pilots would rather get on chocks quicker, get their post flight duties done earlier and get to the car park to get home quicker, especially after a long day........:rolleyes:

PP

[ray cosmic]

You could even just program it in the FMC so ast o be able to fly it on LNAV and autopilot. It is really easy to strip a couple of trackmiles of an approach by not flying the whole thing.
Flying, based on visual clues, is not dangerous.

[BOAC]

the most you are going to save is about 8-10nm- PP - not always so - and it is not always just the time saved. I'm sure you have experienced the F/O who sails gayly past a CAVOK airfield (downwind right hand), frightened to try a visual, and settles for a 22 mile final ILS in nasty low-level turbulence? Saves a lot of sick bags:oh:

[Pilot Pete]

Fair enough BOAC, but we could take this to ridiculous extremes, I was comparing a 'sensible' visual approach with about a 4nm final, to a 'sensible' radar vectored ILS which would be somewhere in the region of an 8-10nm final. My reply was to eight16kreug who reckons that flying the ILS adds 7 minutes over a visual, which I despute.

PP

[ray cosmic]

Lets not make this an FO/Capt debate, please. I flew with "old" captains doing exactly what you mentioned.

[Joe_H]

I would agree with PP most real world ILS's for commercial a/c tend to vector you in to 8-12 miles you do somtimes get 20-25 mile final but that is on a busy traffic day so you would not get a visual anyway.
A visual will only save you time from a full procedure, radar vector will generally bring you on to final in a more efficient manner ie. you dont have to fly over the beacon so you save time/miles there.
lets stop beating up on the 200hrs guys we ALL havd 200hrs at some point if they have a current lic and TR then thay can fly I can tell you there are some captains with over 10,000 hrs who b**ls up approches.

[The Flying Pram]

As a 1200hr Microlight PPL with some 1500 landings under my belt I read this thread with some concern. Obviously if traffic and WX require use of the automatics then O.K, but as has already been said if you can't hand fly the plane in fine conditions then why are you doing the job? Not so long ago I used to see Air Europa 737's doing visual circuits to land at Norwich which wouldn't disgrace a C150 driver. I guess they spend much of their time visiting airfields with little or no nav/radar facilities, so this is second nature. If I was SLF on a flight experiencing real difficulties guess who I would rather have at the pointy end?

[fivegreenlight]

Night visuals at London Gatwick are common at the moment during good wx, while the ILS is off. :)

[wheezykid]

A couple of definitons for you:
pilot (AIRCRAFT)
noun [C]
a person who flies an aircraft
robot
noun [C]
a machine used to perform jobs automatically, which is controlled by a computer
I know which one I'd rather be.........
Seriously, we get paid to fly aircraft and we should be able to inspire confidence in our passengers. There are times when instrument approaches are safer, even in VMC (high traffic etc), but if you can't fly a simple visual approach and landing in an aircraft you have been checked out on then you shouldn't be permitted to operate it -especially with fare paying passengers on board.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

The big problem arises when companies, either overtly or covertly, advise pilots that manual flight is not 'approved of', thus de-skilling their pilot workforce without having established appropriate means of cost reduction in the short term to reflect the lower professional standards. Regulators who don't act in the flying public's best interests are also implicated. :ugh:

[burty]

Take a look at your MEL once in a while and see what automatics not working constitute no-go items, better still, see when they don't! That day is not the day to 'wonder' how to fly the a/c to TOC, in the cruise and from TOD without said automatics.


Well said PP

[3rd_ear]

One crisp morning back in April, I think, the day that Heathrow got all clogged up on the ground (discussed in another thread), there was a rare 40 minutes or so from about 08:30 when the Director was offering pilots the option of visual approaches. He was enticing them with the phrase "can you see Heathrow...?".

I'm happy to report that fights broke out on flightdecks ("MINE! no MINE!! I'm the Captain dammit!"), cabin crew danced the conga in the aisles and hats were tossed high into the air. Well, maybe I exaggerate. But on 120.4, every pilot sounded very keen to take the opportunity. And that's rather reassuring to an occasional pax like me. :ok:

[DooblerChina]

In good weather with the conditions for it, there is no excuse for not flying visually. It is legal, economical and safe. If I was on a line check and elected for a radar ILS under conditions which permit a visual I would have some explaining to do. We are paid to fly from A to B in the most economical way possible, if the company asks you why you didn't save a few hundred kilos of fuel, Im afraid "because I don't like visuals" won't really wash.

[Bradley Marsh]

Thanks All for your replies.

Cheers,

Brad

[NorthSouth]

I'm intrigued that none of you have mentioned Visual Manoeuvring (Circling) approaches, which are routinely conducted by CAT aircraft around the world in much more challenging circumstances than the CAVOK, no traffic situations you've been discussing. If airlines and regulatory authorities are happy to approve scheduled pax flights day and night into airports where - in at least one case I can think of in the UK - the only way to land on the normally into wind runway under IFR involves an IAP downwind to the opposite runway then a visual break to fly a low level circuit, often just under the cloudbase, to land into wind, then where on earth is the problem with visual approaches when you can see for miles?
NS

[411A]

.....under IFR involves an IAP downwind to the opposite runway then a visual break to fly a low level circuit, often just under the cloudbase, to land into wind, then where on earth is the problem with visual approaches when you can see for miles?

Ah ha, you see the paradox, NorthSouth...there really isn't any, and yet, many of those same pilots who clamor for that visual approach on a nice sunny day are the very ones who think that low circling with a large jet is somehow not all that appropriate.

Yeah, perhaps these folks should stick to the instrument approach, landing straight in...:ugh::}

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

Why on earth WOULDN'T you do a visual approach? A visual means shorter track miles, less fuel used, improved piloting skills.

The fact that this thread exists is sad indeed. It's the slavish button pushers who have trouble when things go wrong not the ones who can actually fly the aeroplane.

Boeing publish profiles for visual approaches, it's hardly an unusual procedure.