Visual / VFR Approach

[timelapse]

Howdy

Just listening to Luton at the moment, who asked an inbound GA aircraft if they wanted a Visual or a VFR approach. As a PPL I wouldn't know the difference! Can someone enlighten? :}

[Barnaby the Bear]

A visual approach is an approach flown IFR. Therefore the controller must still provide standard separation between that aircraft and any other IFR aircraft.
That is the difference.
A controller cannot in anyway persuade a pilot to cancel IFR, but can ask a pilot to confirm if he/she is IFR or VFR.
Don't worry even professional pilots are confused by the word 'visual approach' and what that means to an ATCO.:ugh:

[timelapse]

Cool - cheers. I think aircraft in question was flying VFR before it entered controlled airspace, and at that point was asked whether it wanted a visual or VFR approach - I guess a visual approach would be vectors to the ILS still though - since they ended up on the ILS anyway, whereas a VFR approach would be a visual right base/final or similar?

Certainly is confusing!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I've no idea what a "VFR Approach" is.. maybe someone will enlighten me.

Several aircraft may be cleared for Visual Approaches, if they request them, provided that they all have the airfield AND the other aircraft in sight. In those circumstances responsibility for separation rests with the pilots.

[terrain safe]

HD You don't have to have the airfield in sight, I think just flying with visual reference to the surface....

[tescoapp]

You don't need to have the field in sight either for a visual approach.

It all depends which type of AOC you have an old CAA one or JAR ops.

The caa one says you you need to be insight of the surface and know where you are. The JAR ops one says you need to have the point of landing in sight at all times.

Most of the confusion I think is another case of MATS 1 states a heap of stuff that says the pilots will be operating and will do xyz. Unfortunatly nobody has bothered telling the pilots this and it certainly isn't covered in IR or commercial training. Local interprations individual to each airport exist as well dependent on what the head trainer interpretes the rule book to be.

NATS airports tend to be all reading from the same hymn sheet. But there will be differences between all the others.

VFR approach is a none standard RT call to say you are on your own, see and avoid. I doudt very much if you would hear it from a NATS unit.

A visual approach is an IFR procedure the seperation is dependent of the airspace you are in and also if the ATC is a RADAR unit or procedural unit.

The only thing to watch for is that it could be a cunning plan to stitch you up for an instrument arrival charge. Which could be a 20 quid hit if you asked for the visual option.

[spekesoftly]

I think you'll find that Luton ATC is a NATS unit. MATS 1 does not state that pilots are required to have "the airfield in sight", before being cleared for a visual approach.

[catocontrol]

HD You don't have to have the airfield in sight, I think just flying with visual reference to the surface....
...maybe not in England:} , but you have to have the airfield, or RWY lights in sight, before being cleared for a visual approach in Norway:E

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Apologies; should have read the book first! However, years ago one requirement was for the pilot to have the runway in sight so wonder why it was changed as it seems eminently sensible for the bloke to be able to see the runway first!

[timelapse]

I think you'll find that Luton ATC is a NATS unit. MATS 1 does not state that pilots are required to have "the airfield in sight", before being cleared for a visual approach.

This was Luton Radar which I'm almost certain is a NATS unit. The pilot confidently responded "We'll take the visual" - so I guess he knew, or at least pretended to know, what was going on.

Having said that he did sound a little surprised when he ended up being asked to intercept the localiser!

Personally I'd have asked right then "what's the difference?" but then I'd be flying on a G-reg with no company reputation to worry about ;)

[ComJam]

HD

Are you suggesting it's not possible to fly a visual approach until we can see the airfield?

If you know where the field is and can visually position for it before you can actually see it, what's the problem?

[Hooligan Bill]

Apologies; should have read the book first! However, years ago one requirement was for the pilot to have the runway in sight so wonder why it was changed as it seems eminently sensible for the bloke to be able to see the runway first!

HD

I seem to remember that it was the now defunct "Approach maintaining VMC" that had the requirement to have the airfield in sight.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

ComJam... Best ATC Log Entry I saw at Heathrow Tower read:
"xxx carried out a missed approach. Was cleared for a visual approach and positioned himself to the wrong runway". Not a light aircraft but a Boeing 737 flown by a crew in and out of Heathrow every day. So, yes, I would be very dubious of clearing a pilot for a Visual Approach if he couldn't see the runway.

Hooligan Bill.. OK many thanks for that. I only worked in Class A so never got involved with VMC approaches, etc.

[Jerricho]

I would be very dubious of clearing a pilot for a Visual Approach if he couldn't see the runway.

We do it all the time. Known as a "Contact Approach", IFR aircraft can be cleared for an approach, so long as a/c operates clear of cloud with at least 1 mile flight vis, and a reasonable expectation the met will stay that way so they fly with reference to the surface of the earth. The local operators love it.

" PAG111 request the contact, Oooooh, there's my house.......start the turn to follow the highway......wait, who's car is that in the driveway???????"

[mad_jock]

HD You will always loose sight of the runway depending which direction you are coming from. Once on the down wind and past the down wind end you quite quickly loose the runway. You just use 45 secs after passing it or tatical use of the NDB if available. Sensible peeps will have the ILS etc setup to stop wrong runway selections. We have to practise this for those hellish inventions circling approaches.

Its not uncommon for procedural units in class G in good wx to clear you for a visual at 25-50 miles out on handover. And with Stornoway you have a great big lump of land between you and the runway coming in from W6D.

You don't need to see number one either if the controller has both of you in sight they can clear you for a visual as well. You can also get "cleared visual approach not below xxxxft report the no1 in sight". The controllers in the highlands have black belts in procedural fiddeling of visual approaches, in some ways they can actually get things done which wouldn't be possible in a radar enviroment. There are things that get done at weekends at INV which just couldn't happen during the week due to the Lossie OP's.


MJ

[Married a Canadian]

Putting a guy on the ILS on a visual approach is good as it means you know as a controller that the pilot is not going to make some weird circuit pattern approach that will cock up your sequence.

If you have visuals on paralel runways the last thing you want is an aircraft on a visual going screaming through the centreline and getting in the way of traffic on the other side.

[mad_jock]

MAC so why put them on a Visual in the first place then?

If you want to control them do it. Once on a localiser a visual approach is about as much use as tits on a bull.

[ComJam]

HD

There is NO requirement for us to BE visual with the airfield in order to ask for, or accept the offer of, a visual approach.

It's not difficult to fly, and if people get it wrong, well that's their fault.

Can't take a joke, shouldn't have joined... :)

[Married a Canadian]

Mad Jock

I agree if you are making visual approaches to one runway then yes....why put them on the localiser. I am talking about aircraft making approaches to multiple runways.

The visual approach as has been mentioned is an IFR approach..and you still control aircraft under IFR. What happens if their are aircraft making on other runways. How can you guarantee what an aircraft will do once you clear it for a visual approach....unless you have set them up properly.

In YYZ you can't put aircraft side by side on their respective runways unless you have one on a visual approach...or with other conditions that aren't relevant here. Otherwise we have to run a stagger which is a bit of a challenge. The aircraft end up being controlled with the intention of them flying a visual approach.

So when you have a busy sequence of aircraft coming in...and an aircraft gets visual with the field....you clear him for a visual with no intercept heading or any other instruction....they blitz through the localiser into the teeth of an aircraft on the other runway, they fly a slightly off square pattern and make the aircraft behind them have to reduce speed etc etc, they delay a base turn and mess up the sequence.

I do control them to get to a visual approach...but in busy periods I do it for my benefit and not for the pilots.

I don't care if they find being on the localiser a pain in the arse. They can still descend visually if they wish. The fact they are on the visual makes my operation legal...and therefore means that I will take Tits on a bull any day.:)

[Jerricho]

You're also getting into issues of missed approaches ;)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<You will always loose sight of the runway depending which direction you are coming from.>>

mad jock.. that is plainly an incorrect statement! If the aircraft is 10 miles out on a closing heading for the ILS and gets the runway in sight the pilot is never going to lose the runway providing the visibility is OK. Obviously if he is flying a standard circuit and sees thr airfield as he passes downwind then he will lose it.. I cleared a VC10 for a visual approach once as he passed abeam Heathrow heading west.... got to abeam Woodley before turning in, which caused a certain amount of chaos!!

ComJam - I'm not disputing that there is no requirement for you to see the airfield to make a visual approach. Maybe most of my life as an ATCO at various airfields taught me always to ensure the pilot can see the runway before letting him get on with things himself!

[BYMONEK]

Mac

Sorry, agree with the mad scotsman on this. Maybe i've missed something here, but the minute i've been cleared for a visual approach, then i'm not going to start taking vectors onto an ILS. It's one or the other. Cleared for a visual means it's now the aircrews approach. If as a controller you were concerned with other traffic,then surely you'd keep control of said aircraft and give him the headings to establish for the very reason of avoiding going too far downwind or going through the localiser. Offering us the visual then puts the ball in our court. LGW during v.quiet periods would sometimes clear us onto 26 with height/distance restrictions or "avoid flying over East Grinstead", but never HDG's. Rarely in there now so not sure if still applies.

As an aside, you can still have the ILS selected for enhanced S.A. just in case!


Okay, now re-read it but confused regarding parrallel ops. Must be unique ops to that paticular airfield in the way you have special (and different) 'breakout' procedures for Australia and USA. Still can't see, however, what benefit you give of offering a visual after we've established on the ILS rather than clearing us to descend on glide anyway. If anything, more R/T for both , for as Jerricho pointed out, we should now clarify what the procedure is in the event of a missed as that published on the charts is for an instrument approach only.........and we're now not on one!

As I said earlier, i've probably missed something!

[throw a dyce]

MAC so why put them on a Visual in the first place then?
If you want to control them do it. Once on a localiser a visual approach is about as much use as tits on a bull.
I wonder how Kai Tak operated on 13 then?
It's funny how some pilots push for visuals all the time,only to sail out to 8 mile final.Could have vectored them on a closer ILS.Others break all the AIP rules for minimum heights to turn final at less than 1 mile.Visuals can be far more labour intensive than following the ILS.Then we have to provide gaps as well.
VFR can hold off or orbit at VRP.

[ComJam]

Far more labour intensive for who? Not for the me, nothing simpler than pointing the aircraft at the airfield visually and landing on it.

The use of "27 Left" or "27 Right" should ensure we don't approach the wrong one! Also, as has been mentioned, you can always have the appropriate ILS freq selected to backup your SA.

[throw a dyce]

Far more labour intensive for who? Not for the me, nothing simpler than pointing the aircraft at the airfield visually and landing on it.
The use of "27 Left" or "27 Right" should ensure we don't approach the wrong one! Also, as has been mentioned, you can always have the appropriate ILS freq selected to backup your SA.
The Controller especially if there are lots of other IFR traffic and VFR to affect.The runway designator should always be used especially if there are parallel runways.How many aircraft end up too high off a visual and end up trying to orbit.At least with the ILS it's easier for the controller to monitor.Oh and how many pilots have landed at the wrong airfield off a visual.:D :O

[ComJam]

Guys being too high on final, landing at the wrong airfield etc.... sounds like they're out of practice to me.........need to do more visuals! :} :ok:

[timelapse]

So basically, nobody really knows the real difference between a "VFR Approach" and a "Visual approach"? Should such terminology not have been used?

[Jerricho]

I'm guessing the term "VFR approach" is one of those terms that has crept into the phraseology in places and by the sounds of it certainly isn't in MATS.

Clear as mud 'eh? ;)

[Barnaby the Bear]

Ok here is a scenario.

Pilot inbound IFR is given an EAT and therefore may have to enter the hold or slow down as number 2 in instrument traffic.
Pilot then says in that case he/she would like to make a visual approach..... Now aside from whether he/she has field in sight, cloud ceiling criteria etc, etc. That pilot is still number 2 in instrument traffic.
Standard separation still has to be applied.
If on the other hand the pilot says the magic words 'cancelling IFR flight plan'. Then pilot may join VFR. Depending on the position of the other IFR traffic he/she may become number 1.
(I won't go into the reduced separation in the vicinity etc.)

The point I am making is that Pilots quite often confuse the words 'Visual' approach with an approach made under VFR. :}