Visual approaches
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say the crew was not ' just being difficult'. The crew of any 'large UK carrier' flying to the USA is more that capable of flying a visual approach but, sensibly in my opinion, would rather make use of the best facilities offered by the airport and decline a last-minute change to the briefed approach.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by g27
I can not imagine that it would have been a last-minute change that was not soon enough for the crew to prepare for a visual approach that they could configure for unless there were circumstances that have not been presented.
ASR followed.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glendalegoon:
True, but only at an airport with an operating control tower.
IF you are cleared for a visual approach in the USA and there is PAPI etc or Electronic Glideslope, you use it. You are required in a turbine powered aircraft to remain at or above an electronic glideslope until required for landing. (normal bracketing aside) and this is a regulation.
Yes I believe the visual approach ban in Italy is because of the accident in Cagliari a while back.
TW. About a minimum of 3 Mike spacing, maybe 5, I arrange so the traffic ahead is clear by the time you hit 3/4 of mile on final.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g.f.
Several years ago a Delta flight came very close to hitting the mountain at KTUS that is on the extended centerline of Runway 11L.
It almost happened to a friend of mine, too, many years ago in a Piper PA-24.
In both cases they were arriving from the west and didn't follow basic approach angle techniques.
Night visual approaches take some careful planning in mountainous areas.
Basic flying is visual approaches; they shouldn't require much briefing beyond the crew confirming the airport/traffic is in sight...
It almost happened to a friend of mine, too, many years ago in a Piper PA-24.
In both cases they were arriving from the west and didn't follow basic approach angle techniques.
Night visual approaches take some careful planning in mountainous areas.
aterpster,
No argument from me, our standard is night visual will display the approach and the altitudes will comply with the IFR altitudes unless at a VERY familiar field. We do loads of arrivals at strange airports, the nature of our business, so the instrument approach is the default at night. Also, use of the PAPI is briefed and used only in close proximity of the airport. KSDL being one scary example.
I was in F-100 RTU at TUS after a plane in a formation was scraped off the terrain, so all too aware of the limits. But, I find the near total aversion and confusion on day visuals to be frustrating. New pilots must be trained to fly and flying a visual in good conditions should not be a life or death challenge.
No argument from me, our standard is night visual will display the approach and the altitudes will comply with the IFR altitudes unless at a VERY familiar field. We do loads of arrivals at strange airports, the nature of our business, so the instrument approach is the default at night. Also, use of the PAPI is briefed and used only in close proximity of the airport. KSDL being one scary example.
I was in F-100 RTU at TUS after a plane in a formation was scraped off the terrain, so all too aware of the limits. But, I find the near total aversion and confusion on day visuals to be frustrating. New pilots must be trained to fly and flying a visual in good conditions should not be a life or death challenge.
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 16th Nov 2014 at 00:36.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Euroland
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Galaxy flyer: in the Italian case, do to the way the legal system works, the two ATC controllers involved were inexplicably sent to jail for two years although the terrain responsibility changed to the pilots on being cleared for the visual. The legal thing caused the visual approach ban and I don't blame the controllers for wanting to cover their backsides
Only fatal TUS RTU ever had in the Hun.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, it sure is hard to place a radio frequency in a nav head, or punch some buttons in a fancy FMS to get the ILS to come up.
A few years ago, I was making a non precision (LOC) approach to chicago midway, with a circle to land towards the southeast. I had briefed my copilot (737) who had made us three hours late because SHE forgot to bring her pilot license in her new purse. So it was night time.
So, there we were, snow, but still technically above basic VFR and I told her, once I break off the approach and enter downwind, I want YOU to place the ILS freq to our landing runway on my nav and slew the course selector to the inbound course, ok?
she said: WHY? I've never seen anyone do that before.
I told her, DO IT and I will explain on the ground.
AFTER we landed, I asked her why she wouldn't do what I told her to do. She looked at me as if she were a deer in the headlights.
I explained that once we were off the approach and had the airport in sight, I would fly the downwind/base and intercept final and utilize the ILS for both glideslope information and to make sure we were landing on the correct runway as there were parallel runways.
She said she had never seen that before. I still shake my head over her and the real thing that bothered me, she really couldn' t understand why.
Always use everything you can to make sure you are going to the correct place at the correct altitudes . And if you haven't figured out all the things a pilot has available to find an airport, its time to really sit down and think.
A few years ago, I was making a non precision (LOC) approach to chicago midway, with a circle to land towards the southeast. I had briefed my copilot (737) who had made us three hours late because SHE forgot to bring her pilot license in her new purse. So it was night time.
So, there we were, snow, but still technically above basic VFR and I told her, once I break off the approach and enter downwind, I want YOU to place the ILS freq to our landing runway on my nav and slew the course selector to the inbound course, ok?
she said: WHY? I've never seen anyone do that before.
I told her, DO IT and I will explain on the ground.
AFTER we landed, I asked her why she wouldn't do what I told her to do. She looked at me as if she were a deer in the headlights.
I explained that once we were off the approach and had the airport in sight, I would fly the downwind/base and intercept final and utilize the ILS for both glideslope information and to make sure we were landing on the correct runway as there were parallel runways.
She said she had never seen that before. I still shake my head over her and the real thing that bothered me, she really couldn' t understand why.
Always use everything you can to make sure you are going to the correct place at the correct altitudes . And if you haven't figured out all the things a pilot has available to find an airport, its time to really sit down and think.
Here's yet another maneuver where a HUD is a marvel. The 3 degree dotted line is placed on the touchdown zone, then get the FPV on the dotted line, presto. Perfection. Yes, turn off the FD, acknowledge any "glide slope" warning, turn off the damned thing with the "G/S Inhibit" switch light and fly.
In the simpler times, the PF would say, "G/S acknowledged", the co-pilot would put in a new freq in the ILS head, thus getting rid of a useless warning, and bob's your uncle.
In the simpler times, the PF would say, "G/S acknowledged", the co-pilot would put in a new freq in the ILS head, thus getting rid of a useless warning, and bob's your uncle.
The pilot insisted that the ILS be turned on, otherwise they would require another runway. My question is, was this crew just being difficult, or is there some general rule that would prevent them from simply following the pink line, or quickly loading the RNAV approach?
Was it the Captains first month of command and they were dead keen on being conservative for a few months until they settled in?
Did they have an MEL that increased their workload a bit and the Captain decided any increase in workload wasn't in the interests of safety?
Was it the second sector of command upgrade line flying with a check Captain in the right seat? ( Asiana anyone?)
Was it an annual line check on an experienced Captain who learnt decades ago to keep it simple when being checked?
Had they forgotten to put the seatbelt signs on earlier and were glad of the chance to give the cabin a bit more time?.......Silly I know but there are hundreds of quite legitimate reasons to operate in a conservative manner. A change to the plan late in the piece at an unfamiliar airport at night is not ideal, so if it can be easily avoided then it should be easily avoided IMO.
That said........ I don't think we hand fly visual approaches enough and as a result pilots are losing confidence in their own abilities to fly aircraft. It is a trend that needs addressing but I doubt this was the time to be addressing it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still shake my head over her and the real thing that bothered me, she really couldn' t understand why.
