Regardless of some of the testosterone on here about visual approaches, Flight Safety Foundation data supports flying an ILS where available, instead of a visual approach, presents less risk.
FSF ALAR BRIEFING NOTE 5.1
The Flight Safety Foundation Approach-and-Accident Reduction [ALAR] Task Force, in an analysis of 76 approach-and-landing accidents and incidents, including controlled-flight-into-terrain [CFIT] accidents in 1984 through to 1997, found that:
- Fifty-three percent of the accidents occurred during nonprecision instrument approaches or visual approaches [42 percent of the visual approaches were conducted where an instrument landing system [ILS] approach was available:
I suggest that our job is not a pissing contest, nor is it about self-gratification. The priority is taking the course of action that has the least amount of risk attached to it. Especially considering we're talking, in this instance, about a wide-body aircraft with 250+ people on board. Is it appropriate, given the facilities available? It's not a dick measuring excercise about being able to fly a visual approach or not (all things considered) but whether, it is the safety course of action or not (given the options).
Someone mentioned earlier about not flying ILS when the weather is good to save ATC time/airspace? Well, the time these guys saved, could have been an eternity.
If i have an ILS available, I will fly it. I have had too many bull**** slowdowns into Melbourne from 250-300nm out, just to be sped up, and track shortened inside of the TMA by APPROACH, just so I can get a late landing clearance at 100'.
ATC have to realise, the increase in flight crew workload, at low altitudes, that goes on when they 'spot a gap'.
