Mike
I appreciate what you are saying but a visual approach doesn't have the same guarantees of an instrument approach, namely a missed approach segment. Long prior to the top of descent the approach along with the missed segment is briefed and both pilots know what is going to happen should we go around. Its loaded in the FMS and is mentally flown to ensure no gotchas such as speed restrictions, etc. You say communications is the key. Actually comm is the third step to safely flying the aircraft. Aviate, navigate and communicate in that order. That is if I can communicate with you, lost comm, stuck mic, coverage, etc. Having a published missed procedure allows the order to remain in the proper order. My last go around was at LAX below the persistant marine layer. If we had been on a visual approach clearance (and they were doing visuals, we were on the ILS) we would have now been inversing the order, trying to ensure an IFR clearance via the controller, the other choice would be a non standard profile climb out as we attempt to stay VFR. This is not consistant with safely flying the aircraft.
What you mention are controller responsibilities. Ensuring seperation is a beautiful thing, but I am also worried about other functions of remaining safe also.
I fly visuals all the time, its the preferred method in my opinion. It does however come with some question marks depending on wx, terrain, radio coverage and volume of traffic.
Johnman
Its not just international crews, its domestic crews also. San Fran is the first one that comes to mind with the SOIA approaches, believe Newark also.