Commercial VFR

[martinidoc]

I would be interested in ATC opinion on the following scenario which I encountered yesterday whilst waiting at the Hold at Runway 25 EGNT.

The female Speedbird Airbus Pilot (not sure whether FO or CO) told ATC after landing, that it was "Quite impossible to see the runway on the Approach" and that it was unrerasonable to not have any of the approach aids switched on.

In fact there is a crane situated temporarily at the terminal building which presumably could potentially interfere with the ILS/VOR/DME/NDB radiation, or pose a hazard for the published procedure or both.

In fact the weather being given at the time was 270/8 9999, but there was some lowish stratus at about 1300' and the vis was not particularly good with the slant angle with the sun being fairly low.

After arriving on stand, the pilot went on to transmit to the tower, that she intended reporting this incident.

My question is this. Presumably the commander had accepted a visual approach. If he or she was unable to visualise the runway, all the way down the approach, should s/he not have rejected a VFR clearance, and diverted, or asked whether the crane could have been lowered and the ILS turned on?

I might add that I was flying all day, and could certainly see the approach lights even in the afternoon from the coast some 6 miles away, but to be fair this is my base field.

It seemed to me at the time that the pilot had forgotten some basic rules of airmanship and had perhaps come to rely too heavily on the Instrument aids at the expense of becoming de-skilled in VFR flying. Presumably she was able to see something otherwise she would not have been able to land!!

[keithl]

You wanted "ATC Opinion" and I'm not ATC. I'm sure they'll respond in a moment (sound familiar?!).
But it's an interesting question and I look forward to seeing the answer. For the moment, though, can I just point out the risk of confusing two different things. VFR is, surely, to do with seeing and avoiding other a/c. Nothing to do with seeing the ground. After all, you can be VFR "on top". A "visual approach" which I agree she shouldn't have accepted if she couldn't see the runway, is just a different kind of approach.

[vintage ATCO]

Yes, on a Visual Approach the aircraft remains under IFR.

The NOTAM for the crane says all IAPs suspended but available on request. Also the crane ops would be suspend when the vis falls below 5000m or cloud base below 1500ft.

Perhaps at the precise time of the BA approach the low sun was in line with the runway making it a bit difficult, and by then it's a bit late to ask for the crane to be lowered and the instrument approach switched on, unless you go around and wait.

[av8boy]

After arriving on stand, the pilot went on to transmit to the tower, that she intended reporting this incident.
And I would encourage her to do so. If this needs to be handled differently on the airport side, it is far better to make adjustments on the basis of an observation rather than an accident report. And if the problem is within the observer, this is the way to flesh that out as well. I can't speak to the specifics here. I'm simply making a general point. As a controller, this kind of report would do me no harm at all, and it might even make my life easier. In any case (and to reiterate), if it makes operations safer, it is a worthwhile exercise.

Dave

[Spitoon]

It's hard to give an answer to this one without knowing a bit more detail. The BA aircraft got onto approach somehow - presumably making a visual approach following radar positioning...so it had the runway/lights in sight at some point.

Was the pilot complaining that they were suckered into an approach that was difficult ... or was she complaining that what the NOTAM says (although the NOTAM is not particularly clear about what is supposed to happen) didn't happen?

It's not my intention to side with ATC and not the pilot but in this situation it's a bit late for ATC to offer assistance that might be available after the aircraft has landed. If it's hard to see the runway the pilot should say so - maybe there are other lights that could be switched on, maybe radar could monitor the position of the aircraft (and before my fellow ATCers say anything, I know it's a bit dubious what service is being provided), maybe the crane was on the way down and the ILS could have been switched on, maybe any number of other things could have made things easier ... but we'll never know.

As to the flight rules and stuff, as vintage points out, an IFR flight that makes a visual approach is still IFR and gets separated from all other IFR and SVFR flights ... but that's not really an issue here by the sound of it.

One last point, the crane is unlikely to interfere with all of the navaids - more likely the crane infringes the obstacle clearance surfaces for the approach procedures.

[martinidoc]

I remain a little confused. EGNT control zone is Class D. If the IAPs are not available, I cannot see how descent below MSA can be permitted if VFR cannot be observed.

Unless the controller is informed on approach (not after landing) that the pilot cannot see the runway, he cannot be expected surely to give advice or assistance.

The service provided by ATC would indeed be radar control, but in Class D we often operate under VFR, and it is our responsibility to maintain terrain clearance as well as separation from other VFR traffic.

Since there was a NOTAMed additional obstruction (the crane), it would seem to me that it might be extremely dangerous to continue a "visual approach" in poor vis, when the IAPs have been suspended. As has been stated earlier, there was an option to request that the crane be lowered, and the ILS reactivated if poor vis or low cloud were encountered.

If I have misunderstood the situation. I would welcome enlightenment from ATC. Anyone from EGNT available??

[vintage ATCO]

martinidoc

Please dismiss any references to VFR. This was an IFR approach at all times.

Strictly speaking, I suppose you cannot radar vector an IFR aircraft to a 'visual approach'. It is 'radar vectoring to an instrument approach until the pilot gets the runway in sight'. In this case, I guess, it could be a surveillance radar approach to 2nm from touchdown. However, in practice, if we are assured the pilot will become visual before final descent below the SSA, then controllers will use the phrase 'radar vectoring for a visual approach'. [I appreciate opinions on this may vary!]

As Spitoon says, the withdrawal of the IAPs is most likely to do with infringement of the approach surfaces rather than interference to the approach aid.


VA

[DFC]

From a pilot's point of view, if there is an obstacle and all IAPs are withdrawn, then I would expect that to include SRA's.

Consequently, I would expect radar vectors to a visual approach. To me that would mean radar vectoring onto the centre line not below the minimum vectoring altitude at an appropriate distance from the threshold. Or put simply, the controller turns us onto the centreline at the usual distance and asks if we are visual.

Being visual has nothing to do with VFR or even VMC. The flight is still IFR and the weather may be less than VMC.

As for descent, that is covered by the minimum height under IFR rule that exempts us from the requirements when we are below 3000ft and visual.

Finally, the pilot reported that an incident report would be filed. BA crews file hundreds of them every month regarding everything from the standard of catering to serious aircraft faults and Airprox incidents. If no one reports anything, nothing will ever be changed until an acident happens. The average private flyer avoids reports like the plague but in doing so looses out of the positive side of reporting - increased safety.

Regards,

DFC

[GearDown&Locked]

I'll go with DFC's opinion.

I don't have the EGNT charts here but at the time this a/c reached the DH and continued all the way down to the rwy, then a decision was made by the flyer to proceed safely (in his own perception) to the ground.

If not, the flyer would surely reject the landing.

Complaints are a good way to make things easyer to everyone, and probably she was only following Airline rules.

[Timothy]

Forgive the ignorance...what is DH on a visual approach? Surely you go around the moment you lose visual reference? It's sort of the opposite of a DH as it were.

Or am I being stoopid again? :\

Timothy

[martinidoc]

I accept that a visual approach may be undertaken under IFR. However as Timothy indicates, if you lose visual reference to the runway, the MDH is no good because you could be 30 degrees off the approach track!!

Here is the NOTAM:

FROM 04/01/14 13:34 TO 04/02/13 16:00 C0118/04
D)0800-1600
E)CRANE OPR EAST FACE OF MAIN TERMINAL ADJACENT TO STAND 3.
BEARING 321DEG(MAG)/410M FM 07 THR, MAX HEIGHT 226FT AGL. IAP TO BOTH
RWY SUSPENDED, BUT AVBL ON REQUEST. CRANE WILL CEASE OPS AND JIB
LOWERED IF MET VIS FALLS BELOW 5000M OR CLOUD BASE BELOW 1500FT.
INFO PASSED FROM ATC AS REQUIRED.

It seems to me that the pilot having lost visual reference should have gone around and climbed to the MSA, and asked for the approach aids to be turned on, rather than proceeding without visual refernce and complaining about it afterwards. The NOTAM clearly indicates that the IAPs will be re-established on reuqest.

Although the pilot was vectorred onto the final approach, because the IAPs were suspended, an SRA was not available.

I just suspect that either peer, or commercial pressure might have had a part in making the crew persist in their approach, despite having lost visual reference.

[caniplaywithmadness]

What's all this nonsense about pilots needing to have the runway in sight to carry out a visual approach????

To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights may be authorised to execute visual approaches if the pilot reports he can maintain visual reference to the SURFACE and:

a) The reported cloud ceiling is not below the initial approach level or

b)The pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the visibility will permit a visual approach and landing, and a reassonable assurance exists that this can be accomplished.

The pilot of an aircraft only needs to be able to see the ground when making a visual approach.

If a visual approach is NOT possible then it is up to the commander of an aircraft to make the decision NOT to ACCEPT a Visual Approach, go and hold and wait for the ILS or Divert.

Complaining about it when on the ground doesn't do any good, if a pilot makes an approach that they are not happy about they SHOULD NOT CONTINUE, surely to do so is likely to ENDANGER the aircraft???

[10 DME ARC]

Sounds to me that what ever report, company or 1261, is going to come back and shot her in the foot.

Should have gone around and asked for the crane to be lowered and the ILS made available!

Mind you what would be the go around from a visual approach to no approach aid............ Common sense would be to go around and ask ATC.

[Lon More]

Surely, if this was at any stage an instrument approach the ILS was on?

[Timothy]

Lon More

Surely it was radar vectors to visual finals, effectively an SRA terminating at 5 miles (if 1500' was the min cloudbase)?

Timothy

[Invictus]

Hello All,

I am an ATC in Dubai, not familiar with the UK rules per se, however:


Visual approach. (ICAO Definition, Doc 4444 - PANS ATM)

An approach by an IFR flight when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed in visual reference to terrain.

There is no requirement to keep "the field" in sight during a visual approach, only the ground.

The pilot may have filed for two reasons,

1. The ATIS not reporting the cloud at 1300', which may have caused her to loose sight (briefly?) of the ground without warning. This implies that that may have waited until they were below the reported (if any) cloud base before executing the visual approach, not expecting anymore cloud between them and the field on their planned track.

2. The fact that the Notam stated that the Instrument Approach Facilities would be available if the Cloud Base went below 1500', which it appears to have been.


Even though the pilot is reported to have said that it was "Quite impossible to see the runway on the Approach" she does not say that she lost visual contact with the ground, so there is no "requirement" to execute the missed approach/go around.

Remember that if the crew were surprised by the conditions that they encountered, then there is a good chance that other pilots might also get surprised. Also remember that many accidents are the result of a culmination of events, this pilot may have just removed a possible trigger to an accident by making the ATC's aware of the situation.

All of this is and remains a matter of opinion(s) as we do not have access to all the details.


Invictus

[DFC]

Timothy,

Many operators use a decision height (DH) when making a visual approach.

This decision height has nothing to do with being visual or not since by definition to continue a visual approach then the required bisual reference (specified in the ops manual) must be available.

The decision height is exactly that, a position where a decision is made to continue or not. The use of such a point on visual approaches can assist in removing some of the dangers of late low go-arrounds. Some operators I have come across use 200ft and require that either a landing clearance be received by that height or if not, a land after with the pilot being happy that it will work.

Regards,

DFC