More complex visual approach requirements in Australia?
Thread Starter
More complex visual approach requirements in Australia?
A professional pilot has claimed to me that when you get a visual approach in the USA, the only mandatory requirement is that you must not climb.
In Australia, he claims there are nine requirements, and even more at night. Can anyone verify if this is so?
In Australia, he claims there are nine requirements, and even more at night. Can anyone verify if this is so?
To whom do we complain about **** airspace layout?
Thread Starter
Maggot. Complain to Mr Carmody. We were going to an internationally proven system however it has now been half wound back. Like nothing anywhere else in the world.
We have airline aircraft in radar/ADSB coverage in IMC self separating. Great for the 1940s
We have airline aircraft in radar/ADSB coverage in IMC self separating. Great for the 1940s
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ.../media/aim.pdf
Page 384, or section 5-4-23, describes the US requirements for a visual approach. The most general section is this:
and it goes on to discuss a few other points about operations where there isn't a weather service, towered airports, parallel runway operations and other more specific points. There may well be a general CTA requirement not to climb when on descent or having reported left a level in the FAA procedures, but I don't have that reference handy.
You'll find the requirements for a visual approach here in AIP ENR 1-1 page 27 (for within CTA) with the terrain clearance and tracking requirements listed over the following two pages among other information, and also in ENR 1.5, 1.15. The layout and how it is described in our AIPs could definitely be improved with an emphasis on bringing all relevant information into the same paragraphs or page and clarifying how it is written. Even if the requirements are unchanged, simplifying how they are presented would make the rules and day/night options easier to understand.
Page 384, or section 5-4-23, describes the US requirements for a visual approach. The most general section is this:
A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport.
The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight.
This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility.
Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater.
ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual meteorological conditions.
Cloud clearance require-ments of 14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.
The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight.
This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility.
Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater.
ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual meteorological conditions.
Cloud clearance require-ments of 14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.
You'll find the requirements for a visual approach here in AIP ENR 1-1 page 27 (for within CTA) with the terrain clearance and tracking requirements listed over the following two pages among other information, and also in ENR 1.5, 1.15. The layout and how it is described in our AIPs could definitely be improved with an emphasis on bringing all relevant information into the same paragraphs or page and clarifying how it is written. Even if the requirements are unchanged, simplifying how they are presented would make the rules and day/night options easier to understand.
Last edited by De_flieger; 27th Feb 2018 at 00:54. Reason: Including mr flappy's reference/corrections, which is also relevant
1.15 Visual Approaches
Subject to the requirements of paras 1.7, 1.10 and 1.14, the pilot
need not commence or may discontinue the approved instrument
approach procedure to that aerodrome when:
a. By Day. Within 30NM of that aerodrome at an altitude not
below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate
step of the DME or GPS Arrival Procedure, or the MDA for the
procedure being flown, the aircraft is established;
(1) clear of cloud;
(2) in sight of ground or water;
(3) with a flight visibility not less than 5,000M or, in the case
of a helicopter, is able to proceed under helicopter VMC,
or the aerodrome is in sight; and
(4) subsequently can maintain (i), (ii) and (iii) at an altitude
not less than the minimum prescribed for VFR flight (CAR
157), to within the circling area or, in the case of a
helicopter, can subsequently maintain helicopter VMC to
the HLS.
b. By Night. At an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the
route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS
Arrival Procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown,
the aircraft is established:
(1) clear of cloud;
(2) in sight of ground or water;
(3) with a flight visibility not less than 5,000M; and
(4) within the circling area or VAA–H, as applicable; or
(5) within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of
that aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and
established not below “on slope” on the T-VASIS or PAPI;
or
(6) within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at Sydney)
of that aerodrome, established not below the ILS glide
path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.
Note: Reference to circling area in this section includes the
circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category
where the limitations of the higher category are complied with.
Subject to the requirements of paras 1.7, 1.10 and 1.14, the pilot
need not commence or may discontinue the approved instrument
approach procedure to that aerodrome when:
a. By Day. Within 30NM of that aerodrome at an altitude not
below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate
step of the DME or GPS Arrival Procedure, or the MDA for the
procedure being flown, the aircraft is established;
(1) clear of cloud;
(2) in sight of ground or water;
(3) with a flight visibility not less than 5,000M or, in the case
of a helicopter, is able to proceed under helicopter VMC,
or the aerodrome is in sight; and
(4) subsequently can maintain (i), (ii) and (iii) at an altitude
not less than the minimum prescribed for VFR flight (CAR
157), to within the circling area or, in the case of a
helicopter, can subsequently maintain helicopter VMC to
the HLS.
b. By Night. At an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the
route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS
Arrival Procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown,
the aircraft is established:
(1) clear of cloud;
(2) in sight of ground or water;
(3) with a flight visibility not less than 5,000M; and
(4) within the circling area or VAA–H, as applicable; or
(5) within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of
that aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and
established not below “on slope” on the T-VASIS or PAPI;
or
(6) within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at Sydney)
of that aerodrome, established not below the ILS glide
path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.
Note: Reference to circling area in this section includes the
circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category
where the limitations of the higher category are complied with.
Maybe....in ingrish...
Visual approach means you have clearance to proceed under own navigation by the most direct path, descending as required from where you are to the final approach. You must keep clear of cloud, maintain visual and remain inside CTA steps. Once you get within 5nm of the field you may maneuver to intercept the approach path...
At night you get to add extra distance if the field gas an ILS/PAPI and greater distance if operating into Sincity.
...is this in Greek, Mr Smith?
Visual approach means you have clearance to proceed under own navigation by the most direct path, descending as required from where you are to the final approach. You must keep clear of cloud, maintain visual and remain inside CTA steps. Once you get within 5nm of the field you may maneuver to intercept the approach path...
At night you get to add extra distance if the field gas an ILS/PAPI and greater distance if operating into Sincity.
...is this in Greek, Mr Smith?
My apologies mr flappy, I read your post as meaning "5 NM, which is the circling area at night" - i see what you meant to say, and have removed the part of my post referring to it.
Well as all things OZ Aviation the requirements are 'more' complicated than the rest of the world. In Euroland you just have to be able to find the runway navigating by visual landmarks and the only requirement is an RVR of atleast 800m. The rest, clear of cloud, cloud bases and visibility is up to the discretion of the pilot.
Originally Posted by Maggot
To whom do we complain about **** airspace layout?
Originally Posted by Dick
Maggot. Complain to Mr Carmody. We were going to an internationally proven system however it has now been half wound back. Like nothing anywhere else in the world.
How about you suggest that CASA change the MOS (the rules they wrote under the orders of ???? but "supported" by you) to allow practical C steps to cover the descent profiles of the modern jets. And you can forget that E stuff; unless you want traffic services to A380s on VFR lighties swanning through terminal E.
Re the current CTA steps being problematic for descents.
I seem to recall they largely are what they are now due to lobbying by AOPA in the late 90s or early 2000s to raise the base of CTA to provide the max Class G possible. I can't recall what descent profile(s) Airservices used, but I recall there were grumbles from day one of the new airspace steps coming in.
For one, the changes had made a step of Class C LL 8500 45-30DME in almost a complete arc around ML. I recall there was a bunfight sometime later when Airservices proposed a new small step of C LL 7500 45-30DME to the north of ML. The reason given for the change was because heavies from the north for ML RWY 16 were having to stay high to remain in CTA. The change had been requested by the airlines, and AOPA wanted to see the letters.
The then AERU (Airspace & Environment Regulation Unit within Airservices, precursor to the Office of Airspace Regulation in CASA) overrode the objections and approved the proposed change.
I seem to recall they largely are what they are now due to lobbying by AOPA in the late 90s or early 2000s to raise the base of CTA to provide the max Class G possible. I can't recall what descent profile(s) Airservices used, but I recall there were grumbles from day one of the new airspace steps coming in.
For one, the changes had made a step of Class C LL 8500 45-30DME in almost a complete arc around ML. I recall there was a bunfight sometime later when Airservices proposed a new small step of C LL 7500 45-30DME to the north of ML. The reason given for the change was because heavies from the north for ML RWY 16 were having to stay high to remain in CTA. The change had been requested by the airlines, and AOPA wanted to see the letters.
The then AERU (Airspace & Environment Regulation Unit within Airservices, precursor to the Office of Airspace Regulation in CASA) overrode the objections and approved the proposed change.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The European one has Been read out of context.
12.1
To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights, either within or outside controlled airspace, may be authorised to execute visual approaches if the pilot reports that he can maintain visual reference to the surface and:
(1) the reported cloud ceiling is at or above the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment; or
(2) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the visibility will permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance exists that this can be accomplished.
Controllers should not clear an aircraft for a visual approach when the RVR is less than 800 m. If a pilot requests a visual approach when the RVR is less than 800 m, controllers should inform the pilot that this type of approach is unavailable and request the pilot’s intentions.
All the 800m refers to is the possibility of fog somewhere on the RWY or transmissometers. You will see that cloud must be above the initial approach segment and that visual reference must be maintained. Pretty well what we have here.
12.1
To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights, either within or outside controlled airspace, may be authorised to execute visual approaches if the pilot reports that he can maintain visual reference to the surface and:
(1) the reported cloud ceiling is at or above the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment; or
(2) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the visibility will permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance exists that this can be accomplished.
Controllers should not clear an aircraft for a visual approach when the RVR is less than 800 m. If a pilot requests a visual approach when the RVR is less than 800 m, controllers should inform the pilot that this type of approach is unavailable and request the pilot’s intentions.
All the 800m refers to is the possibility of fog somewhere on the RWY or transmissometers. You will see that cloud must be above the initial approach segment and that visual reference must be maintained. Pretty well what we have here.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Just for the sake of context, in Western Europe and the UK it is exceedingly unlikely you will be cleared for a visual approach at a major airport for a host of reasons including noise, traffic density, airspace, separation etc etc
The USA of the other hand, the other day into ORD on left base at 15 miles “cleared visual approach...cleared to land 28C”
The US use the visual approach as a means of passing responsibility to the aircraft commander and improving flow rates.
The USA of the other hand, the other day into ORD on left base at 15 miles “cleared visual approach...cleared to land 28C”
The US use the visual approach as a means of passing responsibility to the aircraft commander and improving flow rates.
The US use the visual approach as a means of passing responsibility to the aircraft commander and improving flow rates.
Passing the responsibility of aircraft separation to the aircraft commander. Also used at older airports with parallel runways not quite far enough apart for independent ILS operations. ( yes all about improving flow rates )
Passing the responsibility of aircraft separation to the aircraft commander. Also used at older airports with parallel runways not quite far enough apart for independent ILS operations. ( yes all about improving flow rates )
Didn’t the increased night requirements for a visual approach come about after Bush Pilots lost a Cessna C402 near Cairns on a freight run?
Last edited by Stationair8; 27th Feb 2018 at 19:56.