Thanks PJ2 – I get your point, and, of course, you are correct. The issuance of a "visual approach" in most cases today, is almost seen as a relief. Of course, the typical airline "visual approach" that is rather routine is almost a non-event. Usually the visibility is on the order of 10 miles or more and there are the myriad of electronic and visual glide path "clues" available when it's not quite that good. Continually referencing a broadcast electronic glide-slope or continually cross-checking the VASI or PAPI lights also does little for developing one’s skill at flight path judgment. Therefore, flying in accordance with visual flight rules (VFR) is, obviously, an “OK” thing – particularly if you’re bopping along at 65 miles per hour in your Cessna-something airplane. Of course, I completely understand that when you get to the 135 to 150-knot traffic pattern speeds in something with the wings swept a bit, and getting that kind of clearance when flying with 3 miles visibility, it most certainly can get a bit more challenging … and that is particularly true when the terrain (i.e., mountain, trees, whatever) is just beyond the 3-mile visual site picture – and, as everyone knows, 3 miles at night and 3 miles at high noon are not the same thing. Also, there is the bit about having some experience in judging flight path angle on the descent – which is also a bit more complicated without the help of at least some sort of light from that big ball of fire in the sky.
I am surprised that every airline doesn’t specifically indicate what airports are and are not approved for their flight crews to fly “visual approaches.” While it may be a bit time consuming initially, it certainly would pay off down-stream … and the only authorized deviations should be for an emergency – or deviation into an airport that isn’t on the operations specifications – either of which should already have the flightcrew on the edge of their seats.
My comment was generated by the rather stark difference between even the minimal values that have to exist to get the "visual approach" clearance - which, as I've indicated, can get dicey at times ... but it doesn't hold a candle to the "diceyness" of asking for a "contact approach" - which, as many on here have recognized - requires only 1 mile visibility, remaining clear of clouds, and maintaining visual "contact" with the ground. Navigating to the end of the runway with only "visual contact with the ground" and being able to see only a scant mile in front of you (lessened by slant range, of course) is a recipe for problems (in my not-so-humble opinion) ... unless you're exceedingly familiar with the airport AND its surrounding terrain features - all of which becomes more complicated as the approach speed increases, and was the reason for my statement - and even then, it seems to be pressing the "aviation gods" a bit more than is necessary except in the most extreme circumstances.