IFALPA RNAV Visual statement
IFLAPA recently issued a statement regarding RNAV Visual approaches. It appears there aren't in favour of this type of visual approach technique. What I'm trying to understand is why. I fly both RNP-AR and RNAV Visual procedures and I fail to understand the threat posed by an RNAV Visual approach. Surely a coded FMS procedure which ensures track predictability and terrain clearance is preferable to a Mk1 eyeball approach. I'm certainly not advocating that pilots should not be able to fly good old fashioned visual approach. In fact I believe it's a dying art that needs to revived in some parts of the world, but I also believe there places where a well designed RNAV Visual can be of great benefit to both operators and ATC.
Have there been instances where RNAV Visual have led to incidences or accidents that might have prompted IFALPA to adopt this view?
Last edited by divinehover; 2nd February 2015 at 22:52.