Visual approach

[Black_Dawn]

I know the general requirements for asking for a visual approach:

a) the Met reported ceiling is at or above the published initial approach level for the aircraft so cleared; or

b) the pilot reports at the inital approach level or at any time during the instrument approach procedure that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed.

No minimum visibility is stated;but once i heard about a visibility of 800 meters, minimum, to request a visual app.

Are you aware of any visibility limitation by regulation? :confused:

Any help appreciated

B_D

[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: Black_Dawn ]

[Tor]

Visual Approach:
There are no requirements to ceiling and no requirement to be able to maintain VMC.

The pilots should be able to find the airport by navigating with reference to the ground.

Pilot responsible for seperation to the ground, ATC responsible for seperation to other traffic.

Min. visibility for commencement of Visual Approach 800 m.


VMC Approach:
WX above VMC minima. Because pilot responsible for seperation to traffic aswell as terrain.

[Tor]

Here is a link to Appendix 1 To JAR-OPS 1.430 - Aerodrome Operating Minima (http://www.jaa.nl/jar/jar/jar/jar.ops.1.app.1.430.htm), if you would like it in writing.

(g) Visual Approach. An operator shall not use an RVR of less than 800 m for a visual approach.

[411A]

And therein is the difference between PanOps and Terps...Visual approach in the USA is much more restrictive...would you actually use a "visual" to land with 800 metres vis (or RVR).... well, you be 'da judge.

[Tor]

The 800 meters is a minimum. If you can fly special VFR in 1.5 km vis, I can't see any reason not to fly a visual in 1.5 km either, provided that you can find your way. If the aircraft is small/slow enough I can't see any reason not to do it in 800 meters either.

Your US-Visuals is what is called a VMC approach in Europe.

[411A]

Tor, what you describe is called a contact approach in the USA and is limited to one mile/1600m visibility. To maneuver to land with 800m vis would to me seem foolhardy indeed, unless you are in a helicopter or the Goodyear blimp....but hey, different strokes for different folks. But don't try it in a jet, the chief pilot may well have...objections. :eek:

[IHL]

In Canada you need 3 miles vis , ATC considers you to be in VFR conditions therefore a go around would be a VFR circuit.

[Tor]

You are assuming that there is only 800 meters vis where you are flying, but remember that both criterias need to be fullfilled. Besides the vis, you have to be able to find your way with reference to the ground only, from the MSA.

That would not be very often that you can see the ground from e.g. 2000 feet with 800 meters vis. That would be if there was fog but nsc, which again would mean that the forward vis at 2000 feet would be significantly better. So what if the last 100 feet was in 800 meters if you only go 70 kts? If you had no problems positioning yourself for the final, then why waste time perhaps flying a long procedure.

IHL, what do the operators, that doesn't allow VFR, do in Canada? Never fly visuals or never go-around? LoL. Are you sure you don't mean VMC, or does ATC really cancel your IFR?

[U R NumberOne]

Tor is on the right track. As I understand it, the 800m requirement was brought in to prevent aircraft making potentially dangerous visual approaches when the vertical visibility is good but the horizontal viz is poor due to low fog over the airfield. The risk being when the aircraft is on short final the runway may disappear into the murk - not the point on the approach where you want to lose your visual references. :eek:

In ATC, we class the 800m as an 'absolute minima' - just like other IFR approaches have attached to them. Although we can't prevent a pilot from making an approach below absolute minima we are required to broadcast a standard speech which advises the crew we will take reporting action on the incident.

[2daddies]

A little confused by what you're referring to. Do you mean minimum visual conditions for a VFR flight (with a caveat in Australia allowing authorisation for "Special VFR"). Or are you referring to the criteria by which approach/tower can authorise you to make a Visual Approach (both IFR and VFR)?

My understanding of Visual Approaches is that they may be authorised and conducted ()at least in Australia):
1)By Day:
Within 30nm of the Aerodrome and not below MSA/LSALT/appropriate DME Step/Procedure MDA.

Clear of Cloud

In sight of ground or water

Flight VIZ not less than 5000 meteres.

2)By Night:
As above, but in addition;
Be within the circling area OR

Within 5nm of an AD (7nm for RWY with ILS) established not below "On Slope" of PAPI/VASI and on the RWY centreline OR

Within 10nm of an AD established not below "On Slope" of the ILS with less than full scale deflection.

Convoluted way of saying that minimum VIZ day or night must not be less than 5000metres with the ground/water in sight.

Any less? Expect Instrument Approach!

[static]

Tor, 411A,

Seems we`ve had this discussion already a few months ago. In Europe, a visual approach is an approach, conducted under IFR, whereby the pilot uses visual cues outside to fly to the runway, providing his own terrain clearance. As for separation with other traffic; this is a shared responsibility between pilot and controller.
And yes, 411A it can be done with RVR 800m or more.

[Tor]

2daddies, we are referring to IFR, Visual Approach (I can’t think of any VFRs that would permit 800 meters RVR - except helicopter in Germany where 500 meters met vis is legal).

The European definitions are (translated from Danish CAA approved textbook, with authors emphasis):

Visual Approach (VA):
If the aircraft obtains visual contact before the Instrument approach has been completed, the aircraft shall follow the Instrument approach anyhow, unless the aircraft requests and/or accepts clearance for a VA

Clearance for a VA may be given to IFR flights, provided:
The aircraft is able to maintain visual contact with the ground and
The reported ceiling is not below the approved approach altitude or
The aircraft at the approach altitude reports, that weather conditions will permit approach with visual contact to the ground and there is a reasonable certainty that landing can be completed.

Separation during VA:
ATC is responsible for separation.


WMC-approach:
By request from the aircraft, the aircraft may be given clearance for a VMC-approach, during which the aircraft is responsible for separation until a specified time, position or altitude, provided:
The aircraft is able to remain VMC (my comment: normally 5 km below FL100, 1500m and 1000 feet clear of clouds)
Daytime only
Below FL200
Only in airspace D and E
ATC provides “Essential Traffic Information”.

Separation during VMC-approach:
Pilot In Command is responsible for separation.

[2daddies]

Tor:
Tx for the clarification. What you're referring to is called "Visual Circling" in Australia when coming off a non-precision approach. Criteria:
1) "After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment (i.e., the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway) will be kept in sight while at MDA for circling." - JEPP Terminal AU-20

In other words, pilots discretion on VIZ.

In regards to precision approaches, Australia only has ILS facilities to CAT I standard (this is paradise - we don't get bad wx!). Therefore min flight VIZ at the minima are those published on the chart (location specific) except that:
1) VIZ 1500m required when High Intensity Approach Lighting is not available

2) VIZ 1200m required unless:
a) Aircraft flown to minima manually using Flight Director or is autocoupled
b) Aircraft equipped with serviceable failure warning system for the primary ATT & HDG reference systems AND
3) High Intensity Runway Edge Lighting is available.

A Visual Approach is, for us, a way of choosing our own altitude while on a specified track (until within a certain area) in VMC while still under positive control.

[IHL]

TOR : I work for an Air-Taxi/ Commuter operator and are allowed to do visual approachs . ATC usually initates it by clearing you to their minimum IFR altitude in hopes of the aircraft becoming "visual" .

I pasted the following from the Transport Canada Aviation web site , separation standards.

7.0 Visual Approaches
7.1 The following conditions shall be met when an aircraft is cleared for a visual approach: (N)

(a) the reported ceiling at the destination airport is 500 feet or more above the minimum IFR altitude and the ground visibility is 3 statute miles or more;

(b) separation, other than visual, is provided that from other IFR or CVFR aircraft except that the aircraft being vectored may be instructed to maintain visual separation from preceding arriving IFR or CVFR aircraft when cleared for a visual approach;

(c) the aircraft reports sighting:

(i) the airport if there is no preceding IFR or CVFR traffic, or

(ii) the aircraft that it will be instructed to follow;

(d) the aircraft will complete its approach by following a flight path which will not compromise separation with other IFR or CVFR aircraft.

NOTE: Visual approaches may be requested by pilots or initiated by controllers to gain an operational advantage for arrivals operating in good weather conditions. Pilots cleared for a visual approach are responsible for compliance with published noise abatement procedures, wake turbulence separation and avoidance of Class F airspace.

7.2 Visual Approaches to Multiple Runways

7.2.1 IFR separation shall be maintained until visual separation is applied when conducting visual approaches to multiple runways.

7.2.2 In addition to the requirements in Chapter 3, Section 7.0 - Visual Approaches, the following conditions shall be applied when visual approaches are conducted to parallel, intersecting and converging runways:

(a) parallel runways separated by less than 2500 feet:

(i) IFR separation is maintained until the aircraft reports sighting any preceding aircraft on final approach to the adjacent runway,

(ii) the aircraft is instructed to maintain visual separation from the reported traffic,

(iii) a heavy aircraft is not permitted to pass any other aircraft, or a medium aircraft is not permitted to pass a light aircraft;

(b) parallel runways separated by 2500, but less than 4300 feet and both aircraft are being vectored for visual approaches:

(i) separation, other than visual, is maintained until the aircraft are established on a heading which will intercept the extended runway centre line by 30 degrees or less, and

(ii) both aircraft have received and acknowledged the visual approach clearance;

(c) parallel runways separated 4300 feet or more, and both aircraft are being vectored for visual approaches, separation, other than visual, is maintained until one of the aircraft has received and acknowledged the visual approach clearance;

(d) if one of the aircraft is being vectored for a visual approach while another is being vectored for an instrument approach, separation, other than visual, is maintained until the aircraft conducting the visual approach has received and acknowledged the visual approach clearance;

(e) intersecting and converging runways:

(i) IFR separation shall be maintained until the aircraft has received and acknowledged the visual approach clearance,

(ii) visual approaches may be conducted simultaneously with visual or instrument approaches to another runway.

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: IHL ]

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: IHL ]

[No_Speed_Restriction]

Gentleman,
Let's cut to the chase. Let's set the scene:

Can an aircraft that is visual at NIGHT with the airfield, not even one cloud in the sky, descend below MSA at about 10 miles and join base leg and position on a, lets say, 5 mile final?

Let's say that the aerodrome has no radar facilities but does have a published NDB/DME procedure.

Is it a Yes or does commercial expediency get a slap on the wrist?

It would be nice to clarify as I'm still trying to find a definitive answer not a definite maybe!?! :confused:

[ShockWave]

Given the above situation, I would have to say no way!

How can you be sure of your obstacle clearance at night if you are below msa, lsalt,mea etc. Mountains don't have lights, nor do power lines strung between them and are you really sure that, that flashing beacon on top of that 400ft radio mast is still working??
Just because you can see the runway does not guarantee your saftey from obstacles that are out there waiting for you!

Stay above your published lsalt or msa until you are within your approved circling area for the category of aircraft that you fly. eg. 4.2 nm for cat C. etc.
Stay within that area and at or above the circling minima for that runway until you can established yourself on a normal approach profile, with the landing threshold and visual approach slope guidance (if it has any)continually in sight.

[Nick Figaretto]

I am sorry that I have to disagree with you, ShockWave.

No_Speed_Restriction: The answer is a definite yes.

We can all make our own, more restrictive rules for what we consider as safe flying. But there's nothing in NSR's scenario that implies that you would break any JAA rule if executing a visual approach.

In the areas I fly, we have a lot of instrument approaches starting at 6500 feet and above, with interception of final track at up to 20NM distance.

In a clear, starry night with snow on the mountain tops, I do not hesitate at all to go straight for a base leg at 1000 feet, when I know the aerodrome and its surroundings. And when I actually see them, of course.

This is even so if the ground visibility is close to 800m in shallow fog (The case is the same: a starry night). The whole idea with the 800m JAA rule is that when you see the aerodrome throughout the visual approach, the reduced visibility is due to shallow fog over the runway.

Wether you intercept final track at 1000' visually or 7000' via the IFR procedure doesn't really matter. You will not enter the fog untill you are below 300' anyway.

On the other hand, when it's pitch black in moist weather where you can suspect some low stratus here and there, I would stick to the instrument procedure when flying at night.

Nick.

[2daddies]

No Speed Restrictions,
Forgive the Antipodean slant on everything but were you to even think of doing such at night in Australia you'd have a CASA Flight Ops Inspector waiting for you to shut-down so he could grab your licence and tear it into pieces.

The answer in this neck of the woods is: NO!

Night VFR rules call for not below the MSA/LSALT until within a 3nm radius of the aerodrome with the aerodrome in sight - regardless of the quality of the VMC (ie - all the 9s or marginal).

IFR must still utilise MSA/LSALT until within the AD's Circling Area (which is dependent on Category of Aircraft - my plane is Category B, so its circling area is 2.66nm arcs from the threshold of each end of the runway joined tangentially) with the aerodrome in sight.

If IFR and conducting an Instrument Approach in VMC at night (eg - practice) you can descend below the MSA/LSALT to MDA outside of these areas but ONLY IF FOLLOWING THE APPROACH PROCEDURE WITHIN ITS PRESCRIBED LIMITS AND DO NOT ABANDON THE APPROACH UNTIL WITHIN CIRCLING AREA - with the aerodrome in sight!

The only times these regs are relaxed r.e.-descent below MSA/LSALT is when;
1) the aircraft is within 5nm of an aerodrome (7nm if runway is ILS equipped) established on the runway centreline and not below "On Slope" of the PAPI/VASI system
OR
2) the aircraft is within 10nm of the aerodrome established within full scale deflection of the Localiser and not below "On Slope" of the ILS Glidepath.

Can anyone throw more light on the JAA regs for this sort of manouever for me? I can't believe they'd vary so much between our 2 authorities!

[OffCourse]

Read Tors first two posts. Those posts pretty much sums up the JAA regulations on visual approaches. IFR visual approaches in VMC conditions.

If you get field in sight and you can keep it in sight throughout the approach, and the surrounding terrain is clearly visible, you are basically free to fly "VFR" the shortest way to final.

I'm writing "VFR", because you are still on IFR flightplan, and thus ATC have to treat you as an IFR flight, separation wise.

In my company we are not allowed to fly VFR at all. But if you get the field in sight, you can execute a visual approach from 35 000 feet, if you want to. During darkness visual approaches is company restricted to within 25NM from the AD.

[Slowshot]

Tor, when did you last fly in 800 metres vis and navigate by reference to the ground? Get real!
And No Speed ... no suprises .. no answers .. again!!

[Vmu]

Zena: The requirement is 800m visibility on the ground at the airfield. Not in flight. Where I fly, fog is often very local, and with mountaintops some 5000' above the fog navigation with reference to the ground is usually easy.

[Slowshot]

I have discussed this again with one far more experienced than I, and it is deffinately OK. For 2daddies, what possible benefit in converting to a visual approach at 2.66 miles from the field? Aussie rules always been different .. no?

[2daddies]

Zena,
The benefit of remaining at MSA/LSALT until within the circling area is to my mind one which far outweighs the risks of going below it 10nm from the field - you don't tend to hit anything.

In Australia they only survey terrain within the circling area (out to 6.94nm for Cat E) to ensure obstacle clearance. Personally I'd be happy to descend to 1000 feet at night 30nm from some of the airports I fly to, but I won't for two reasons:
1) It's illegal
2) I THINK I know the area like the back of my hand, but I really don't want a single power line or un-noticed hill to prove my knowledge invalid.

I don't know how far from an airfield the JAA surveys but ultimately it comes down to insurance and discretion - why go low if you don't have to?

As far as aircraft performance goes, if you set yourself up early enough, descending to circuit height from the MSA/LSALT and completing a circuit within 2.66nm is no drama whatsoever.

[Nick Figaretto]

(...)if you set yourself up early enough, descending to circuit height from the MSA/LSALT and completing a circuit within 2.66nm is no drama whatsoever.

Well, if the MSA is 7500', you are in for a pretty steep approach...

And in addition: A visual approach according to JAA rules is not a matter of diving down to 1000' at 30NM, and flying along just hoping that you won't crash into a mountainside. Normally you just follow a 3 degree slope (3xALT) towards the airfield, making the final turn at around 1000-1500' AGL and making a normal landing. With the field and terrain in sight at all times.

Easy peasy japanesie. :)

And it's not illegal according to JAA rules!

Why are the rules so strict in Australia?

[scanscanscan]

Nick.... I think it is because they really have their act together on flight into terrain.
Anyway what do the accident records show?
Cheers mate.

[Capt Pit Bull]

in flight vis <> RVR.