Originally Posted by
CW247
The US understanding of visual approaches speeding up arrivals is a bit flawed. Lining up a stream of visual traffic is no different to lining up a stream of ILS traffic if done properly. This is simply ATC being lazy and passing the buck.
Also, US controllers don't understand that pilots arriving from Europe are doing their approaches in survival mode with very little room for acrobatics. A night visual is not a healthy way to land a widebody given awake times of 16-18 hours.
Not sure if you’ve ever done the approach in question to SFO, but I’d hardly call a visual approach “acrobatics”.
Also, do we know how many pilots were on board? I gather many EU operators come to the east coast of the US with only 2 pilots. I imagine a flight to sfo would have at least 3 pilots, so everyone would’ve had a chance to rest. It’s not like they were asked to fly a circling approach at minima after operating for 12 hours.
To your first point, it’s not about lazy controllers. The separation requirement is reduced for visual approaches, so by doing visuals, ATC can provide service to a greater number of customers.
Would you rather do a visual approach (in nice weather on a nice night) or hold for half an hour waiting to do an ILS?