Some additional commentary from another U.S. Controller:
The 7110.65 says that the reported ceiling must be 500' above my Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) to initiate a vector for a visual approach. That rule would practically guarantee at least a 2000' ceiling at any airport
advertising visual approaches. In Mountainous areas, more likely 2500' or more. We can authorise a VA if pilot requests down to basic VFR, 1000' X 3 mi, but no controller should be using those minima for
initiating a VA. Therefore, a go-around should most often be a non-event. Either left/right closed traffic to a landing if traffic no factor, OR if traffic is a factor requiring re-sequence, then an IFR altitude and vector, followed by hand-off back to the approach controller.
*I* do not vector for a VA, unless such approaches are either advertised on ATIS as being in use, or I tell the crew to expect a VA some distance from the field. I have no problem whatsoever with a crew that tells me promptly they wish vectors for the ILS. In fact, it's common late at night when the crew (and everyone else) is tired. What I have a problem with is the more "crude" method of refusing to report the airport or preceeding aircraft in sight. That's because I need to plan my sequence and spacings on final, and a VA has different requirements from an ILS. In fact, there have been numerous times I've had to
refuse an ILS approach clearance at the "last minute" because it was then too late to establish a proper sequence and intercept. Those instances led to the aircraft being broken out, and vectored some 20 miles or so to the back of the line. It's not "punishment" of any sort, it's that I must meet certain requirements myself.
I certainly recognise that VAs are likely un-comfortable for crews not familiar with my airport and surrounding area. I hope YOU understand that the majority of the pilots I work with have no problems with VAs, and in fact request them. (Sometimes from 30 miles out!
)