Visual Approach

[brns2]

Scenario:

I am tracking 170 To the destanations VOR, and cleared to descend to 2,000. I am at 15dme when im "cleared visual approach" at night.

The runway track is 190. When may i descend?

1) 5nm if established on PAPI
2) 7nm if on a PAPI (on an ILS runway)
3) 10nm if on the ILS (14nm at sydney)
4) When within the circling area, 2.66nm for cat b

1,2,3 are not possible as im not established on final

The only way i can see of doing it is #4. But losing 2,000ft in under 3nm is not possible.

Should approach be telling me i am "cleared visual approach, and maneuver as required to intercept final"? if not should i be asking them?

[Nivo]

Maneuver at 25nm MSA until aligned with 190, then choose 1-3 as appropriate.

Nivo :ok:

[5miles]

You could also use a larger circling area as applicable to higher performance categories, so long as the relevant minima are still met.

[always inverted]

Surely you would have actually requested the visual app, therefore should have a plan...

[mattyj]

different rules in the big country AI, I've just coverted my licence and there was some serious study to be done..one of us is ICAO but I'm not sure which!

[RENURPP]

11.6.4 Tracking Requirements. Tracking requirements for a visual approach
include the following:
a. A pilot in command must maintain track/heading on the route
progressively authorised by ATC until:
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome; or
(2) by night,
− for an IFR flight, within the prescribed circling area; or
− for a VFR flight, within 3NM of the aerodrome; and
− the aerodrome is in sight.
b. From this position the circuit must be joined as directed by ATC
for an approach to the nominated runway.
11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:
a. by day:
(1) for an IFR flight, remain not less than 500FT above the
lower limit of the CTA; and
(2) for IFR and VFR flights, operate not below the lowest altitude
permissible for VFR flight (CAR 157).
b. by night:
(1) for an IFR flight:
− maintain an altitude not less than the route segment
LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/
GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower
limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
− if receiving an ATS surveillance service, operate not
below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is:
− within the prescribed circling area for the category
of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations
of the higher category are complied with, and the
aerodrome is in sight; or
− within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an
ILS) of the aerodrome, aligned with the runway
centreline and established not below “on slope” on
the T-VASIS or PAPI; or
− within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at
Sydney) of the aerodrome, established not belowthe ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth
deflection.
(2) for a VFR flight:
− maintain not less than the lowest altitude permissible
for VFR flight (CAR 174B) until the aircraft is
within 3NM of the aerodrome and the aerodrome is
in sight.
11.6.6 When conducting a visual approach, a pilot in command must not
climb above an altitude reported to ATC as having been reached or
left, unless authorised to do so.
11.6.7 A pilot in command operating under the IFR who desires a visual
approach and is satisfied that the visual conditions as per para
11.6.1 can be met must report ‘VISUAL’. A pilot who is unable to
continue a visual approach which has been authorised by ATC
must immediately advise ATC.
11.6.8 A pilot reporting VISUAL, may initially be given a clearance below
the LSALT to a specific altitude in the following terms:
a. by day, “DESCEND TO (level) VISUAL”; or
b. by night, “WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA,
DESCEND TO (level) VISUAL”.
11.6.9 A pilot descending to and maintaining a specific altitude visually
below the LSALT must comply with the minimum altitude requirements
detailed at para 11.6.5.
11.6.10 A pilot may be assigned the responsibility to follow another arriving
aircraft which he/she has reported sighting. When assigned
this responsibility, the pilot must maintain separation from and not
overtake that aircraft. In this circumstance, the pilot is also responsible
for providing his/her own wake turbulence separation except
that ATC is responsible for wake turbulence separation between
landing aircraft. If sighting is subsequently lost, the pilot must advise
ATC immediately.

I would ignore some of the previous advice.
Its a huge concern, although not supprising, the number of posters not aware of the requirements of a visual app. := Geez this is bread and butter stuff.
Always inverted, the plan should be in accordance with the above.
Nivo, WRONG :confused:
Mig3 its "easy" only if you know what you are talking about! :rolleyes:

Of course you could request a clerarance to do something different.

[Dragun]

Its a huge concern that most of the posters are not aware of the requirements of a visual appI agree completely.

mig3

"Cleared visual approach" at night, means do as you please, but YOU are responsible for terrain clearance. So your options are either to request tracking to intercept the runway heading and descend on the PAPI/VASI, ILS etcHonestly if you believe that then good luck to you. It boggles the mind how little you must know about anything else if you don't even know the basic conditions of a visual approach at night.

The answer to that question based on the information given is no.4. There is no other reference to aligning yourself with the landing runway, where the final approach fix is and whether or not you request any further clearances. If you continue on a track 170 to a 190 QDM runway then your only option is no.4. You may then descend and fly a circuit back for the landing runway.

There is also a reference in the DME/GPS arrivals section in Jepp Terminal/ENR1.5(?) that states something along the lines of 'clearance for a DME/GPS arrival allows you to manoeuvre to intercept final approach' so that would come into play if you weren't cleared for a visual approach. I know that has nothing to do with this particular question but it is something that many people forget about so keep that in mind for real world scenarios. I don't have my Jepps with me so can't give you that reference unfortunately.

[Nivo]

RENURPP you are correct. I was mistaking operations at a controlled aerodrome with a CTAF. Obviously if you are "cleared visual approach" you are not at a CTAF.

Thanks for the detailed response.

cheers,

Nivo

[RENURPP]

Dragun, this link is to AIP. Handy when we don't have our books.

Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/aip.asp)

[Wingman09]

Descend visually and maintain your own terrain clearance, if you are unfamiliar with the area easiest solution is to continue carrying out the approach.

[Curved Approach]

descend on the steps from the DME/GPS arrival procedure and when within 5nm manoeuvre onto the runway heading;

just to point out you can not manouvre inside the FAF!!! So manouvring would need to be done prior to the FAF wherever that is published on the chart.

RENURPP, I agree, some very concerning responses there!

[RENURPP]

brns2,

I am sorry I didn't answer your question in my first post.

Should approach be telling me i am "cleared visual approach, and maneuver as required to intercept final"? if not should i be asking them?

The way i see it you have a couple of options.

Track to, and when established within the circling area continue descent. Cat D 5.28, C 4.2, b 2.66 nm.
Ask ATC for a clearance to intercept final so you can comply with answers 1, 2 or 3. You cannot descend below MSA or MVA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS arrival until you are established as per 1, 2 or 3. Terrain clearance will remain your responsibility.

[Nivo]

Ask ATC for a clearance to intercept final so you can comply with answers 1, 2 or 3. You cannot descend below MSA etc...

With the exception of the clearance (I assumed CTAF incorrectly), this is the same as my answer!

cheers,

Nivo

[brns2]

RENURPP,

Thanks mate thats what I thought and was just looking for confirmation.

As i have been put in this situation a couple of times at a controlled aerodrome, where they have cleared me to the VOR and then at 20ish miles said "cleared visual approach"... I know that the final/localiser is just there...

But technicaly im not "established" on 1,2 or 3so i cant start my descent or deviate from track until within the circling area.

Unless as you say, im cleared to intercept final outside the circling area

Thanks!

[RENURPP]

Nvo

With the exception of the clearance (I assumed CTAF incorrectly), this is the same as my answer!


yes it is, BUT if you did as you said which is Maneuver at 25nm MSA until aligned with 190, without requesting a clearance you would be receiving a please explain. At a CTAF no problem, thats another story.

In fact at a CTAF you can track to a "5 mile final" when ever you want as long as you are in G airspace. 25nm is simply what the MSA is based on.

[glekichi]

Does any body know of a case where the NZ system of night visual approaches and descending as you like (what mig3 suggested) had ended up in CFIT? (Not a smart arse question. I would genuinely like to know)

Although the Australian system makes sense in black hole conditions, or in any circumstance where any doubt exists re terrain, being free to descend when the PIC is happy to when the terrain is clearly visible should not be a problem.

One particular approach I do regularly (Aus) is incredibly painful as you can see damned well that you are over the city - no black holes, and you can see exactly where the ground is, yet the DME steps are very restrictive and require quite a steep descent at the last minute.

It looks to me like another case of regulating common sense to the point that pilots no longer use it - and then lose it :ugh:

[Captain Nomad]

One further 'PS' to RENURPP's last valid post - bear in mind that if you are OCTA approaching a CTAF and choose to manoever outside the 25nm MSA your track LSALT may no longer be relevant and if you are using that for terrain separation be careful as a higher value (like Grid LSALT) may now apply!

[Capn Bloggs]

Capt Nomad, on your arrival, above Australian LSA of 8200ft until inside 25nm, keep your hands off Padmé. She's mine! := :}

[FGD135]

brns2,

The answer to your question is 4, but to give you more room to manoeuver, you can:

1. Request direct tracking to a 5/7/10 NM final, and
2. Use a circling area applicable to a higher category of aircraft. For example, you may be in a cat B aircraft, but you can use the cat C circling area which is 4.2 NM. Or the cat D, which is 5.28 NM.

The cat E is 6.94 NM but from a quick glance through my approach plates, there don't appear to be too many aerodromes in Australia that have been surveyed for circling areas of that size.

The restriction on using the higher category circling area is that you must, obviously, observe the altitude restrictions associated with the larger circling areas. Those altitudes are higher, of course, than your cat B.

[Counter-rotation]

BRNS 2,

Yeah, there was some worrying stuff at the start of this thread, but it seems to have settled out now! :ok:

I understand your question and the reasons for asking it, and can't help piping up here with my own little bit of input - hope it's helpful.

From your original post:
You are 100% correct in what you say about not being established on centre line, so that rules out 1,2,3 as options. By elimination, you have number 4. But there's a little bit more to say about that - when cleared visual approach, your previous level requirement of 2000 is removed, and you can in fact descend IAW DME/GPS arrival steps. Whether you can actually do this will depend on a number of things, like...
Do you even have a DME or GPS? (probably, but not stated)
Are the steps helpful in providing further descent? (depends on local terrain)
etc...

Ignore anyone babbling about manoeuvering inside 5 miles etc - YOU ARE NOT CONDUCTING THE DGA, just using it to guide further descent during a VISUAL APPROACH - none of the approach speed restrictions apply, and that tracking restriction similarly does not apply.

A visual approach has TRACKING, and LEVEL requirements...

I hope that answers your originally posted question, and in fact I'm pretty sure most of that has been said already by others.

PRACTICALLY, (and I fly a similar situation often in my own work) when you get "cleared visual approach" -

1) if DGA steps and/or minima are available to you and "useful", I would bore in, continuing along your previously cleared track to the VOR, using the DGA plate and DME/GPS for further descent. This will result in manoeuvering closer in, and give you a "reasonable" height to continue descent from - once inside your circling area (speed reductions depend on the type you're flying, but should be well possible with short level segment and... well you are a pilot you'll suss all that out)

2) Ask (as previous posters have said) for tracking to final from present position. Remember, you are cleared visual approach now, but you still have a TRACKING requirement - until specifically released from it - lets say, by a further tracking instruction from ATC. You'll probably get it when you ask, so you may then intercept final and proceed with any of your other (1,2,3) listed options as available (does your ship have ILS?, are you at Sydney? etc) When you are tracking to intercept final, you now can also make use of the 25nm MSA if you like, though you have described getting your "cleared visual approach" from about 20nm and manoeuvering is not extensive - so 2000 is probably plenty until established on final (at 10ish nm, and proceeding IAW 1,2,3 as above.

7 miles is about 2000' for a typical approach path... Also remember the DME is usually NOT at the threshhold! You may be inside your CAT B circling area, when indicating for instance DME 3.5 or something like that.

OK, that's enough I reckon you are well and truly across visual approaches by now!! Have a plan, have fun with it, AND safe flying

CR.

[ZappBrannigan]

CR, I'm still a little confused - which is not good, as I should know this stuff. I refer specifically to your comment "But there's a little bit more to say about that - when cleared visual approach, your previous level requirement of 2000 is removed, and you can in fact descend IAW DME/GPS arrival steps."

We're talking about operations in CTA here - obviously OCTA you can descend on the DGA profile and when you're within the circling area, conduct the approach to landing as required. In CTA though, I thought descent below the last assigned altitude (in this case 2000) was not permitted until within the circling area - the level requirement is not actually removed. I've re-read the law as posted by Renurpp on the previous page:

11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:

b. by night:
(1) for an IFR flight:
− maintain an altitude not less than the route segment
LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/
GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower
limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
− if receiving an ATS surveillance service, operate not
below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is:
− within the prescribed circling area for the category
of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations
of the higher category are complied with, and the
aerodrome is in sight; or

And the rest applies when you're aligned with the centreline, which we're not. So if we're receiving an ATS surveillance service, we can't operate below the last assigned altitude (2000) until within the prescribed circling area. Which I read as saying that although it'd be perfectly safe with regard to terrain clearance, descent on the DGA steps below the last assigned altitude is not permitted until within the circling area.

Sorry if missed something completely obvious here.

[RENURPP]

No.

Out of interest what is the location we are discussing? Just so I can havve a look at the appropriate charts.

[ZappBrannigan]

I thought the original post was based on a generic controlled aerodrome, nowhere in particular.

[RENURPP]

It may well have been.

He does mention it has happened a couple of times, and although the rules are fairly straight foward there maybe other options depending on where the situation occurs.
As i have been put in this situation a couple of times at a controlled aerodrome, where they have cleared me to the VOR and then at 20ish miles said "cleared visual approach"... I know that the final/localiser is just there...

[ZappBrannigan]

So Renurpp, is that your interpretation of the rules? That at a controlled aerodrome, when cleared visual approach and not established on centreline/slope, you cannot descend below the last assigned altitude (2000 in the example) until within the circling area, regardless of DGA procedures applicable to the aerodrome? Or is there an instance where you can legally descend below 2000 outside the circling area when not established on centreline/PAPI/etc., when cleared visual approach?

My interpretation, as above, is that although you may be assured of terrain clearance by flying the DGA steps, you cannot legally descend below your assigned altitude until within the circling area - i.e. being cleared visual approach does not remove the level requirement of 2000 beyond the circling area (unless established on final as per the rules).

[glekichi]

RENURPP,

How about in a non-radar CTA?

Its a huge concern, although not supprising, the number of posters not aware of the requirements of a visual app. Geez this is bread and butter stuff.

[Lasiorhinus]

Its not a very steep descent unless you want it to be.

In the question given, you are not on the centrelines of any runway, so you do need to wait until you are in the circling area before you descend.

Descend in a holding pattern if you want to preserve your passengers' ears. It is a circling area: so circle! :ok:

[FGD135]

ZappBrannigan,

Excellent post - from the point of view of throwing in something about which, it would appear, none of us are too sure. The spanner you have thrown in, as you are aware, is this part:


− if receiving an ATS surveillance service, operate not
below the last assigned altitude;


So what, exactly is an "ATS surveillance service"? I have been doing some research on that question this morning. At first, it would appear that just being radar identified constitutes being under an "ATS surveillance service".

But, from looking at an old copy of the AIP book, it appears that "being radar vectored" is what it actually means. And this would make perfect sense, as, if being radar vectored, then the controller should have the responsibility for terrain clearance (and getting the aircraft down to the MVA (minimum vectoring altitude)).

And, the descent to the MVA should be the last instruction to the pilot before the "cleared visual approach" (when being radar vectored). (I came across this statement somewhere during my research.)

Here is the same passage, quoted from my old AIP book (page ENR 1.1-23, para 11.5.5 b. (1). The page is dated 24 NOV 2005):

for an IFR flight:
- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
- if being radar vectored, operate not below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is: ...

So, it would appear that, for an arrival in CTA when radar vectoring has not commenced, Counter-rotation is correct in his statement that the visual approach clearance constitutes clearance to descend below an assigned level.

It was my understanding, also, that this descent authorisation was implicit in the visual approach clearance.

[ZappBrannigan]

So what, exactly is an "ATS surveillance service"? I have been doing some research on that question this morning. At first, it would appear that just being radar identified constitutes being under an "ATS surveillance service".This is exactly the question I was asking myself - the definition of surveillance service. Just checked my Jepps, which are current - the above term is used in the Visual Approach Minimum Altitude Requirements, no reference to radar vectoring. In the Definitions and Abbreviations section, "ATS surveillance service" is defined as "Term used to indicate an air traffic service provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system" - i.e. the term is not specific to being radar vectored. At a Class C controlled aerodrome, you're constantly being provided such a service, which would mean that you could not descend below last assigned altitude until within the circling area.

Para 1.9.5.1 (Jepps) of the relevant section says as an IFR flight at night you can be given a visual approach clearance within 30nm OR when receiving an ATS surv. service, have been assigned the MVA and given heading/tracking instructions to intercept final or place the aircraft within the circling area.

So I still believe if you're given an assigned altitude, cleared visual approach and given no further clearances or instructions, you cannot descend below that assigned altitude (whether it happens to be the MVA or not) until within the circling area, regardless of DGA procedures etc.

Of course, this doesn't stop you requesting further descent on the DGA profile, or tracking to intercept final etc. as discussed earlier - but the issue here is whether you can descend below last assigned altitude at a Class C aerodrome before the circling area - and I don't believe you can.

[av8trflying]

Just to add my two cents.

When i fly into townsville at night i often get the following:

"Descend and maintain 1900ft, when in the circling area, cleared visual approach runway 07"

This is how I thought it was supposed to work.

[ZappBrannigan]

Av8tr, sounds spot on. They clear you to the MVA (1900'), and you're only permitted to descend below this in the circling area.

If the visual approach clearance removed the altitude restriction, then there'd be no need for the clearance to 1900'.

[Counter-rotation]

G'day Zapp, and sorry for so long in responding...

Yeah, I must say it seems far from obvious. Maybe I am actually recalling from earlier days (I have a few grey hairs) when it used to say "radar vectors" - as pointed out by FGD135. This "ATC surveillance service" bizzo definitely leaves me a bit cold...

I still stand by my belief though, that once you are cleared for a visual approach, your altitude restrictions are as I stated earlier, ie. unless you are on a vector, you have the option to descend IAW... (all that DGA step / MSA / lower CTA limit stuff) If you've been given a vector and a level, maintain that level until in the circling area OR you intercept final (where VASIS / PAPI / ILS GP all come into things...) Remember you may be given a vector to intercept, say, a 5 or 8 mile final - well outside most circling areas, and at 5 miles a normal 3 degree approach has you at 1500ish feet AGL. 8 miles is 2400ish AGL.

Where I fly, we almost always get progressive descent, tracking inbound to the aid, with the last assigned level being 3000. Soon after that, I usualy can and do tell them I'm visual (otherwise it would be IAFs and a whole other discussion). Inbound track is often very close to a straight in approach too, so it is quite similar to the original poster's hypothetical. OK so I tell 'em "visual" (at about 15nm), and get "cleared visual approach"... I don't want to be at 3000 (my last assigned level) on a 2.66 (Cat B) final, so I use the DGA steps to allow further descent, and once in the circling area, I can commence manoeuvering somewhat as required to gain the centre line, and continue on the PAPI. If I want to manoeuver earlier, I ask for it ie. request direct to 5 nm final, from present position - otherwise my tracking is restricted to as previously cleared, regardless of the subsequent clearance for visual approach - ie. straight to the aid.

This reminds me a bit of an earlier thread where people were debating whether "cleared visual approach" required a readback - based on whether it was in fact a clearance, or a statement removing a previous restriction / limitation. Sounds pedantic, but there were some good arguments put forward.

Working from memory (sorry no reference stuff to hand) there is a bit in the Jepp also about criteria for when ATC may authorise a visual approach, and it talks about "the aircraft has been given a vector to intercept final" or something like that... I think?!

The Townsville example offered by av8trflying is just a variation on all of this, in my opinion. 1900 is the last level, and in the same statement the guy is telling you that you are cleared a visual approach once you are in the circling area... You can still ask for something else ie. manoeuvering or what not. The relevance of that to this discussion requires more information. It is very similar to what I used to hear going into Brisbane too.

Last thing, apologies all I tend to be a bit verbose! :rolleyes: But I would rather labour the point a little, than leave out detail which might be important to another's understanding of what I am driving at!

CR. :)

[glekichi]

In the Definitions and Abbreviations section, "ATS surveillance service" is defined as "Term used to indicate an air traffic service provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system" - i.e. the term is not specific to being radar vectored.

I'm not too sure about that one. Launy is a classic example where, from memory, you are identified and its class C but the separation and service provided is procedural. If that is correct then I would say that the service is clearly not being provided "directly" by means of the surveillance system.

When i fly into townsville at night i often get the following:

"Descend and maintain 1900ft, when in the circling area, cleared visual approach runway 07"


Same thing going into Essendon.

Kind of strange, as they should, according to the rules, be able to clear you the visual approach immediately. This in itself would only allow you to descend once in the circling area. The "once established in the circling area" (as they seem to say it in Melbourne) part of the visual approach clearance is pointless, it would seem.

However, I guess emphasising it in the circumstances the rule applies helps, because once again the rules are so poorly written. It never ceases to amaze me how anal CASA can be in certain areas, yet then leave certain rules and definitions so unclear.

[*Lancer*]

I thought ATS surveillance was simply RADAR identified (RADAR control - not necessarily RADAR vectors). If you're in RADAR controlled airspace, you have to maintain the last instruction (all of it) until within the circling area, or on the centreline.

Obviously, it would be a lot easier if controllers were more in the habit of saying (at appropriate airports) "descend to [2000], track as required for final, cleared visual approach" !! :ok:

[Bullethead]

It never ceases to amaze me how anal CASA can be in certain areas, yet then leave certain rules and definitions so unclear

Dead right there, I rang CASA years ago to try and demystify the NGT VIS APP rigmarole and when I stated the subject matter to the CASA chappy he responded with,

"Oh that bag of feckin worms!"

Regards,
BH.

[RENURPP]

I have to say the Survellance thing is a little confusing. :confused:
Considering the requirements pre the introduction of the Surveillance systems for an IFR flight:
- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
- if being radar vectored, operate not below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is: ...


I would consider the surveillance system to be a "new term" to basically have the same meaning. i.e. if we are operating into a radar environment then we maintain assigned altitude (which should be the MSA/MVA) until we are established in the circling area, or the other options for final.

If that didn't suit, we could always ask to carry out a DME arrival which would basically allow us to do a visual approach as we used to.

glekichi

I don't understand what you are specifically getting at.

How about in a non-radar CTA?



If any one can find a definition of ATS Surveillance System I would like to see it.

You would think one of the ATC guys would know exactly what that meant.

[Capn Bloggs]

I suspect "radar vectoring" was changed to "Surveillance service" to cater for ADS-B use by ATC to control the aircraft.

For the same reason, "radar identified" was changed to "identified" some time ago.

Counter-Rotation,
Ignore anyone babbling about manoeuvering inside 5 miles etc - YOU ARE NOT CONDUCTING THE DGA, just using it to guide further descent during a VISUAL APPROACH - none of the approach speed restrictions apply, and that tracking restriction similarly does not apply.
I do not agree. If you are using the DME Arrival steps in anger ie to operate below the MSA at night (it doesn't matter whether you can see the runway or not), then you must do a proper DME Arrival ie FAF at 5nm and straight tracking thereafter until you can satisfy the Visual Approach requirements.

The "Visual Approach" to which you refer only commences when you go eyeballs out: ie in the circling area or on the straight-in Glideslope/VASI as previously mentioned by others.

[RENURPP]

Hey Bloggs,

I suspect what you say is correct. How ever if we literally take "radar vectoring" to mean the same as "Surveillance service", and are tracking under our own steam then we would not currently be being radar vectored, however we may be under surveillance??

A slight but definite difference.

I take it from the AIP that if we are identified, we cannot descend below last assigned altitude until we are within circling area, established on final etc


It should not be so grey :rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

I take it from the AIP that if we are identified, we cannot descend below last assigned altitude until we are within circling area, established on final etc
ATC, in my recent experience, solves that confusion by saying (eg night arrival Perth): "descend to 2500, when established on the Glidepath or VASI, make visual approach", similar to the Townsville example above; in the case of the original post, he was cleared for a visual approach in a separate, later call from his last assigned level. Whether he was under a surveillance service, ie identified by ATC so they knew where he was but perhaps not under direct control ie vectoring, is unknown.

[ollie_a]

Straight from AIP definitions.

ATS Surveillance Service: Term used to indicate an air traffic service
provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system.

ATS Surveillance System: A generic term meaning variously, ADS-B, PSR,
SSR or any comparable ground-based system that enables the identification
of aircraft.


Basically if you are identified you are in receipt of an ATS Surveillance Service.

[glekichi]

RENURPP

That actually should have been "CTR". :uhoh:
Once cleared a visual approach, if the tower were class D, for example, then the person could descend via DGA the steps as required.

What I was getting at was that at the beginning of the thread you poked a stick at people for not fully understanding the 'bread and butter' rules, but then you yourself have been somewhat confused by the rules.

[FGD135]

ATC, in my recent experience, solves that confusion by saying ...


There should be no confusion. I am not confused. If ATC are saying things like that then I suggest they are encouraging confusion. Is that non-standard phraseology from ATC for that situation? I hope to get round to checking that out.

It should not be so grey :rolleyes:

It is perfectly black and white, provided you take the view that "ATS surveillance service" really means "radar vectored". This makes perfect sense, after all, and I will now give the evidence (circumstantial) for why this new term, in this context, means "being radar vectored":

1. We saw, from the old AIP book, that the words "being radar vectored" were in the place that is today occupied by the words "receiving ATS surveillance service". A small wording change, but a BIG change to procedures if it now means what you think it means. Do you think CASA would have made such a change without telling anybody?

There have been no NOTAMS, AIRACS or articles in the monthly magazine. There have not even been any published incident reports arising from pilots not correctly following this supposedly new procedure.

And,

2. Why make such a big change to this procedure? There was nothing wrong or unsafe about the procedure when it used the words "being radar vectored".

But the strongest evidence can be seen in everyday (night) flying:

3. I routinely fly into Darwin at night, on a track not aligned with the runway, and do visual approaches. At the point where I'm cleared for the visual approach, the last assigned altitude has often been A080.

Of course, I continue the descent through that assigned altitude, as my limiting altitude is now the MSA.

Despite having been doing this for 4 years now I have never been queried by ATC or sent the more formal "please explain".

These occasions have all been where no radar vectoring was involved - I had been tracking to Darwin under my own navigation, in accordance with my clearance. I remember one occasion where radar vectoring did occur and one of the last instructions to me from approach was to "descend to 1,600" (the MSA).

Here are the typical radio exchanges:

ME: Darwin approach, good evening, XYZ, on descent to FL140, received ALPHA, 3 POB.

APPR: XYZ, Darwin approach, good evening, descend to A100, QNH 1012, landing runway 29.

A short time later:

APPR: XYZ, descend to A080

A short time later:

ME: XYZ, visual

APPR: XYZ, cleared visual approach runway 29, contact tower 133.1 at 5 miles, good night.

Notice how short and sweet that all was. It can be even shorter than that. Sometimes, on the initial call to Approach, if I report "visual", the controller clears me for the visual approach as soon as I hit 30 DME!

This is another important point: controllers want, and need to have, short and simple procedures so as to minimise the radio exchanges.

Is there an air traffic controller following this thread that can finally settle this question? I will be continuing to conduct the visual approaches exactly as described above.

[*Lancer*]

FGD135, I've never really thought that what Darwin Approach does is a good example for anything! :} Especially when it is simply wrong. I absolutely agree that it should be kept simple, and it definately doesn't help with so much misinformation and bad examples around. Your points 1 and 2 are irrelevant -- it doesn't matter whether there have been NOTAMS or not, the AIP is very clear.

They should be saying "ABC, descend to 1600, cleared visual approach", or "ABC, descend not below the CTA steps, cleared visual approach", or "ABC, cleared DME arrival, cleared visual approach when visual" etc etc.

They must clear you lower than 8000 if they are not operating under procedural control (at night), unless you want to maintain 8000 until the circling area/5/7/10nm boundary.

[Capn Bloggs]

Forget about the term Radar Vectoring. It's gone. History.

provided you take the view that "ATS surveillance service" really means "radar vectored".

It does not mean that at all, and if you take that view then you are misleading yourself. I am being given an "ATC Surv service" when I am on a STAR being descended to the radar lowest safe, then at the end they clear me for a Visual Approach. That is not radar vectoring.

[FGD135]

Forget about the term Radar Vectoring. It's gone. History.

Yes, it does appear that there have been wording revisions to the AIP in the recent past for the purpose of changing to a term that has a "more general" meaning.

But the concept is alive and well. Look at the radio failure procedures in ERSA/EMERG. Specifically, para 1.5.4 g. (ii), where it specifically mentions "being vectored".

Interestingly, whilst looking over this section, I noticed that the term "ATS surveillance service" has appeared here as well! I would take this as further evidence that, rather than being procedure changes, the term is all about wording changes - brought about, no doubt, by the introduction of ADS-B (as suggested by Capn Bloggs).

Here is one more bit of evidence I forgot to include in my previous post:

An "ATS surveillance service" is something you can request. Have a look at Jepps - ATC, page AU-1001, para 1.1. I quote it here:

1.1 Pilots requesting an ATS surveillance service should address their request to the ATS unit with which they are communicating.
Being radar identified in CTA is not something you can request! So, this "ATS surveillance service" must be something different to that.

The simple reality is that for this "ATS ss" to mean, in the context of night visual approaches, simply being radar identified and in CTA, then this makes no sense whatsoever. Whereas, meaning "being radar vectored" makes all the sense in the world.

We have found that, sometime between 2005 and now, the wording relating to night visual approaches changed - the term "being radar vectored" was changed to this new term ("in receipt of an ATS ss").

If the posts to this thread are any guide, and I believe they are, then very few pilots in Australia were aware of that change. This would suggest that pilots are still conducting visual approaches the way they were prior to that wording change.

So, almost every night at an Australian capital city aerodrome, there would be numerous visual approaches that, despite the wording change, are conducted they way they used to be.

If that wording change means a procedure change of the magnitude that posters here are insisting on, then we are talking about major breaches of procedure, every night, involving high capacity passenger aircraft.

Capn Bloggs, how did you conduct visual approaches, with regard to assigned altitudes, back in 2005? Has your conduct of them changed with the arrival of this new wording?

And as for that "definition" that somebody posted. I wouldn't put too much store in that - it was very very broad - to the point of being useless! Definitions, if they are published at all, are sometimes misleading, or only serve to add to the confusion. I would suggest that is the case on this occasion.

[RENURPP]

I agree it must be some thing different

Being radar identified in CTA is not something you can request! So, this "ATS surveillance service" must be something different to that.


However I wasn't suggesting you request to be radar identified, I was suggesting that you cannot be under ATS surveillance unless you are identified.

[Capn Bloggs]

Crikey!

But the concept is alive and well. Look at the radio failure procedures in ERSA/EMERG. Specifically, para 1.5.4 g. (ii), where it specifically mentions "being vectored".
Let's keep the discussion in context shall we? We're talking about night visual approaches, not radio failure procedures.

If I'm on a STAR, I'm NOT being radar vectored, but ATC is providing me with an ATC SS, descending me to the terrain lowest safe altitude (or to the limit of the CTA steps- thanks Dick...), from which they authorise me for a Visual Approach when I am on the VASI/GP.

That's probably another reason why they got rid of "radar vectoring".

[ollie_a]

Guys, what I said before is correct. From AIP;

ATS Surveillance Service: Term used to indicate an air traffic service
provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system.

Air Traffic Service (ATS): A generic term meaning variously, flight
information service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air traffic
control service

NB. you do not even have to be in CTA to be receiving a surveillance service, as long as you are identified.

For example, see AIP 3.3 para 2.16.9. Even VFR flight following is a surveillance service; there's definitely no vectors being provided there.

Unfortunately as an area controller I can't comment on the vagaries of visual approaches however.

[*Lancer*]

It is simple! Forget surveillance/vectors/CTA etc... At night, you cannot descend below your last CLEARED altitude until you are at the applicable distance (circling/5/7/10nm).

FGD135 every high capacity RPT aircraft I've ever heard says: "REQUEST FURTHER DESCENT", which is what you should be doing too! Maybe those in Darwin ATC will figure it out then. After all, the AIP is what should be done... controllers are just as prone to stuffing it up as we are! ;)

[brns2]

Lancer, I agree with you.

In FGD135's case and mine (post#1), i think the problem/confusion is due to the controller not being aware of the rules.

Being cleared for a visual approach at night in CTA at A080 just isn't going to work unless you circle down within the circling area (impracticle)

I think its just a case of requesting that further descent or tracking to a 5/10nm final to descend on the ILS/PAPI/TVASI

[amberale]

Hi folks.
Yes ATC ss used to be a radar or identification service and was changed to accomodate ADSB.
There are a couple of ways ATC can clear you for VSA at night.

1. Inside 30nm from destination.
-VFR anytime.
-IFR the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or
water; and the visibility along the flight path is not less than 5000 M

You then must comply with all of the AIP restictions of a VSA

or

If you are being vectored for sequencing/separation or if you are being descended to a radar lowest safe whilst being recieving a surveilance service[ie I am monitoring you on a specific track ] then ATC must assign the min vectoring altitude and give heading or tracking instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft within the circling area.

The required phrasology is then "when established on the PAPI [or in the circling area] cleared visual approach.

I believe the controller in the origional question is either being lax or doesn't understand the restrictions that they are applying to your descent.
Otherwise they would clear you to track as required for final.

Hope it helps.

AA

[grrowler]

According to AIP, ATC can only authorise a visual approach when, amongst other things:

receiving an ATS surveillance service, the flight has
been assigned the MVA and given heading or tracking
instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft
within the circling area of the aerodrome.

If they aren't doing that, ask them to.

My experience has been that in radar coverage, ATC will progressively assign lower levels until the "ESTABLISHED ON OR ABOVE PAPI, CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH" call, or in non-radar, "DESCEND NOT BELOW THE DME/GPS STEPS, CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH" or similar. Sometimes they need a nudge (as we all do), but just do what you're told, and as already pointed out, you can't descend below your last assigned level except in accordance with the AIP.

[Pera]

or if you are being descended to a radar lowest safe whilst being recieving a surveilance service[ie I am monitoring you on a specific track ] then ATC must assign the min vectoring altitude and give heading or tracking instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft within the circling area.

I think the question some are asking is why has the terminology (re visual approaches) in AIP changed from vectoring to ATC ss. It was changed when all references to 'radar' were changed to 'ss', but in this case it's not just a terminology change, it has changed the intent of the paragraph.

Prior to the change, the step down to MVA and papi's, ils RT was only required if you were vectored.

The change was only noted as an RT change at the time, not a procedure change. Anyone know?

[*Lancer*]

Now you can continue via a STAR without having to receive vectors. The tracking/sequencing stuff is already done, so there is one less step for everyone.

[FGD135]

The change was only noted as an RT change at the time, not a procedure change. Anyone know?
If it was a procedure change, then it was a big change to make without telling anyone.

There are numerous other places in the AIP where the same terminology changes have occurred. That is, the term "ATS surveillance service" now exists where previously was some term involving the word "radar".

They can't all be procedure changes. I would wager that NONE of them are.

To my thinking, we have NOT seen a procedure change in respect of night visual approach requirements - somebody has just noticed the wording change and we have all allowed ourselves to get highly confused by it.

I think the reason for the wording change was simple and has been established in this thread. That is, with the introduction of ADS-B, somebody in CASA felt it was time to go through all the documentation, changing all references involving "radar" to become "ATS surveillance service".

Unfortunately though, the meaning of "ATS surveillance service" is very very broad - so broad as to be useless, in fact. But it replaced some (very narrow), highly specific terms, such as "radar vectored", so naturally, the intricacies of some procedures will have now been obscured.

I would also wager that some other passages in the AIP, having been similarly amended, are now similarly confusing and misleading.

Excellent post, Pera, as the thread was thoroughly bogged down over the definition of "ATS ss" but you have now rescued it. I believe it was my own duff line of argument that was responsible for the thread getting so constipated.

So where are we on the question of assigned altitudes when making a night visual approach in CTA?

Assuming that the new wording is only a red herring and that the rules have not changed in the 15 years that I have been flying (and the balance of probabilities surely, surely suggests this is the case), then:

When you hear "cleared visual approach", you must descend to the minimum altitude. You cannot descend lower than the minimum until you are circling area or on final at 5/7/10.

If you were being radar vectored, then the controller will have just assigned you the minimum altitude (the MVA). But if you weren't being radar vectored, then you need to determine the minimum yourself - and you do that by looking at your chart (the 10/25NM MSA) - and you disregard any intermediate assigned altitude.

All very simple after all.

i think the problem/confusion is due to the controller not being aware of the rules.Wrong! The controllers are just doing it the way they have always done it. Nobody has told them of any change to the procedure.

I've never really thought that what Darwin Approach does is a good example for anything!The Darwin controllers are no less professional and courteous than what I have experienced anywhere else in Australia. It is always a pleasure to go in there.

I went in there again last night, as a matter fact. Again it was a night visual approach. The RT exchanges were almost identical to the example I gave in that earlier post. The only differences were that, this time, the ATIS was OSCAR, the POB 5 and the runway 11.

[RENURPP]

What does MATs say.

Can someone with access post the relevant Visual Approach section here please.

[FGD135]

What does MATs say.

I rang an approach controller the other day to discuss this issue. He referred to his "MATS" which also had been amended to use the term "ATS surveillance service".

In his view, this change was a terminology change only - not any change to actual procedure. He agreed that the change had been poorly effected and would most likely cause a great deal of confusion.

P.S. Please reread the bottom portion of my previous post (made last night) - I have edited it this morning to add the phrase "disregard any intermediate assigned altitude".

[Counter-rotation]

This has turned into a very interesting thread indeed!!

I must confess, I still feel the intent of this section of AIP / Jepp has NOT changed, but I find it harder and harder to argue that in truth, when the specific wording of the document is examined, that "nothing has changed"...

Which in turn means I have been busting the rules on my night VA's since the change. More proof (as though I needed it!) that you never stop learning... So thanks to the original poster for a good question, and all posters for their thoughts on it.

Re: ATC - An interesting observation which may or may not be relevant here, is that Darwin ATC are military, while MOST other radar locations (ie. capital/large cities) are civil... But Townsville = miitary, yes? So...

Another point I'd like to add - As a pilot flying into a random location... Are you expected to know if you're getting an ATC SS? Agreed, most would know this as a point of situational awareness or local knowledge, but if your expected / required / allowed behaviour during a visual approach is altered, surely it must be CRYSTAL CLEAR. Perhaps the advice "you are identified" does in fact serve that purpose? (That's a question, not a statement...) And why in fact should a "visual approach" be executed differently in radar and non-radar airspace?

Something else has not really been mentioned so far - the words "MUST DESCEND AS NECCESSARY" is used in the opening to 11.6.5 - Minimum Altitude Requirements.
So what is "neccessary", and why is it a "must"? Why is it written like that? To me, on an inbound course that is close to the runway alignment, it is "neccessary" to descend (only if able to, hence this entire discussion) and thus avoid unneccessary manoeuvering overhead, as well as freeing up levels earlier for following aircraft - basically this amounts to simplifying and increasing efficiency. If I am visual, why can I not descend to MSA (if <25nm) or IAW DGA steps (if so equipped)? Then when in the CCA I have no need to loiter to lose height, but can join an abbreviated circuit at a height allowing normal descent to landing?
Is it really only simple terminology preventing me from legally continuing descent after "cleared visual approach" (as I and many others, for years, legally did before), am I missing something?

*Lancer* - not sure about your comment re: STARS... Were vectors once an unavoidable result of a STAR clearance?
As for STARs into Darwin, well that is a whole other discussion...

CR.

[*Lancer*]

The STAR comment was to try and highlight that radar vectors and an ATS Surveillance Service are now two different things. The CASA publication concerning the terminology change does indeed stress the need for ATC to confirm aircraft are receiving a SS using the phaseology: "identified" etc.

Here's what the law actually says (again):

"AIP GEN 2.2
ATS Surveillance Service: Term used to indicate an air traffic service
provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system.
ATS Surveillance System: A generic term meaning variously, ADS-B, PSR,
SSR or any comparable ground-based system that enables the identification
of aircraft.

AIP ENR
11.6.1 ATC Authorisation. Except as detailed in para 11.6.2, the criteria
under which visual approaches may be authorised by ATC are as
follows:
a. For an IFR flight:
(1) By day when:
- the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome; and
- the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the
ground or water; and
- visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000M,
or for helicopters 800M, or the aerodrome is in sight.
(2) By night when:
- the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the
ground or water; and
- visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000M;
and
- the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome; or
- receiving an ATS surveillance service, the flight has
been assigned the MVA and given heading or tracking
instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft
within the circling area of the aerodrome.
b. For a VFR flight by day and night, the aircraft is within 30NM of
the aerodrome.


11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:
a. by day:
(1) for an IFR flight, remain not less than 500FT above the
lower limit of the CTA; and
(2) for IFR and VFR flights, operate not below the lowest altitude
permissible for VFR flight (CAR 157).
b. by night:
(1) for an IFR flight:
- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment
LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/‐
GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower
limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
- if receiving an ATS surveillance service, operate not
below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is:
- within the prescribed circling area for the category
of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations
of the higher category are complied with, and the
aerodrome is in sight; or
- within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an
ILS) of the aerodrome, aligned with the runway
centreline and established not below “on slope” on
the T‐VASIS or PAPI; or
- within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at
Sydney) of the aerodrome, established not below
the ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth
deflection.
(2) for a VFR flight:
- maintain not less than the lowest altitude permissible
for VFR flight (CAR 174B) until the aircraft is
within 3NM of the aerodrome and the aerodrome is
in sight.

It seems to pretty clearly indicate that ATC using radar must clear you to a lower altitude to facilitate your descent within the circling area/5/7/10nm, and that the PIC must not descend below the last assigned altitude until within the circling area/5/7/10nm.

"ABC, request further descent" :ok:

[ZappBrannigan]

I've just returned to this thread, and yes it's got interesting. To quote the last post:

It seems to pretty clearly indicate that ATC using radar must clear you to a lower altitude to facilitate your descent within the circling area/5/7/10nm, and that the PIC must not descend below the last assigned altitude until within the circling area/5/7/10nm.I agree completely, and while I'm happy to listen to and analyse all others' opinions, I still haven't read anything in law or published procedure that says I can, when arriving at a Class C aerodrome and cleared visual approach, descend below the last assigned altitude until within the circling area (or the 5/7/10 rules if coming straight in). Seems to be quite a few people who are adamant you can descend on the DGA steps etc. when cleared visual approach in controlled airspace, below the last assigned altitude, while still outside the circling area. While I'm not saying this is plain wrong, my interpretation of the published procedures indicates that it's not correct.

Whether ATC has permitted it in the past is a whole other point in itself. But I don't see anything written down which says it's allowed.

[ollie_a]

What does MATs say.

Can someone with access post the relevant Visual Approach section here please.

11-10-1340
ATS surveillance service -
VSA at night
At night, you may assign an IFR aircraft receiving an ATS
surveillance service, other than a Super or Heavy jet aircraft as
detailed in Clause 11-10-1320, a visual approach at any distance from
an aerodrome if:
a. the aircraft has been assigned the MVA; and
b. the aircraft is given heading or tracking instructions to intercept
final or to position the aircraft within the circling area of the
aerodrome.
11-10-1350
- Examples of phraseology Use the following phraseology to assign the visual approach:
11-10-1360
- Circling area ATC: "WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA, CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH"
11-10-1370
- VASIS/Glidepath ATC: "WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE T-VASIS (or PAPI) (or
GLIDEPATH) CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH"

[Capn Bloggs]

Well, that MATS quote puts paid to this:

ME: Darwin approach, good evening, XYZ, on descent to FL140, received ALPHA, 3 POB.

APPR: XYZ, Darwin approach, good evening, descend to A100, QNH 1012, landing runway 29.

A short time later:

APPR: XYZ, descend to A080

A short time later:

ME: XYZ, visual

APPR: XYZ, cleared visual approach runway 29, contact tower 133.1 at 5 miles, good night.

Notice how short and sweet that all was. It can be even shorter than that. Sometimes, on the initial call to Approach, if I report "visual", the controller clears me for the visual approach as soon as I hit 30 DME!


Visual approach from 8000ft indeed. Still, it is (RAAF) Darwin...

[Pera]

MOS Part 172—Air Traffic Services has this to say:

12.2.4.5 When being vectored at night, an IFR aircraft, other than a HEAVY jet
aircraft as described at paragraph 12.2.4.3, may be assigned a visual
approach at any distance from an aerodrome, if:
(a) the aircraft has been assigned the minimum vector altitude; and
(b) the aircraft has been given heading instructions to intercept final or to
position the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome; and
(c) the following phraseology is used to assign the visual approach:
(i) “WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE VASIS/GLIDEPATH CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”; or
(ii) “WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”.

They have simply deleted the 'radar' in radar vectoring rather than change it to ATC SS. Other references to radar have been changed to SS.

[FGD135]

Capn Bloggs,

I do wish you would take the blinkers off. Somebody with your background could have made a useful contribution to this discussion, given that the wording of the requirements, as it exists at the moment, outlines a very different procedure to that that you have been using for a long time (probably your entire flying career).

ollie_a,

I thank you for posting the section from MATS. Whilst it was useful, it didn't show us anything we didn't already know, as I had already informed the thread that MATS had undergone the same blanket amendment as the AIP (that amendment being the wholesale replacement of "radar"-specific terms to the very general and very broad "ATS surveillance service").

ZappBrannigan, grrowler, *Lancer*

Yes, your reading of the rules is perfectly correct. Yes, what you are posting here does accurately reflect what the rules say.

But what you are reading was recently amended - and there is reason to doubt whether the effect of that amendment was really intended.

Because of that amendment to the wording, the procedure is now changed - and that change was not minor.

So the issue is: was the procedure change intended or not? To my thinking, and I believe there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for this, there was no intention to change the procedure.

So, if it wasn't intended to be changed, then (despite what the words currently say), in effect, it hasn't changed. If you are inclined to reply with something like "but if that's what it says, then that's what it means", then I would ask you to pause and realise that, despite the sanctity we normally associate with them, written word passages can contain errors.

Are any of you guys aware of what the requirements were before this amendment?

In case you weren't, I will tell you that, when making a night visual approach in CTA, provided radar vectoring had not commenced, when cleared for the visual approach you would disregard any assigned altitude and commence descent to the minimum altitude.

But under the current wording, as you guys are acutely aware, you can't do this.

Those of us who have been conducting the night visual approaches in accordance with the previous wording (e.g. Counter-rotation) will tell you that that procedure is simple, efficient, and results in the minimum of R/T exchanges.

Under the procedure as it is currently worded however, the controller will have to make many more altitude assignments. He can't give you the MVA from 30 miles, but the base of the CTA step +500 ft. Then, at the next step, another altitude based on the CTA step. Only when close enough can he assign the final MVA.

Many more R/T exchanges - each one requiring a correct readback from the pilot. Multiply that number of "extra" exchanges by the number of aircraft he has to handle and you will realise that such a procedure is unnecessary - to the point of being stupid.

I am in the process of telephoning the CASA people responsible for this amendment. I was today able to obtain their names and numbers but will have to try again on Monday to get them. I will be asking what the intent of that amendment was, and pointing out that it has resulted in great confusion.

Whether ATC has permitted it in the past is a whole other point in itself. But I don't see anything written down which says it's allowed.
You had to "read between the lines" to see it. Here is the relevant passage, with the wording as it was prior to this amendment (in red text). I have bolded the necessary words (and removed those applicable to day and VFR):


11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:

b. by night:

(1) for an IFR flight:

- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or

- if being radar vectored, operate not below the last assigned altitude;

until the aircraft is:

- within the prescribed circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations of the higher category are complied with, and the aerodrome is in sight; or

- within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of the aerodrome, aligned with the runway centreline and established not below “on slope” on the T‐VASIS or PAPI; or

- within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at Sydney) of the aerodrome, established not below the ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.



By the way, for those that place so much store in the written word, here is a little challenge for you. Here are the same passages, this time as they currently stand. Look at the word "OR". I have bolded and emphasised it. What does it mean? You can't say it is the "or" between whether you are in CTA or not, because that to the left of the "or" also applies to CTA!

What does the "or" signify? Who's up to the challenge?


11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:

b. by night:

(1) for an IFR flight:

- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or

- if receiving an ATS surveillance service, operate not below the last assigned altitude;

until the aircraft is:

- within the prescribed circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations of the higher category are complied with, and the aerodrome is in sight; or

- within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of the aerodrome, aligned with the runway centreline and established not below “on slope” on the T‐VASIS or PAPI; or

- within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at Sydney) of the aerodrome, established not below the ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.

What does the "or" signify? Who's up to the challenge?

[Capn Bloggs]

Unbelievable.

given that the wording of the requirements, as it exists at the moment, outlines a very different procedure to that that you have been using for a long time (probably your entire flying career).
Rubbish.

You get a Visual Approach when or after you have been assigned the MVA. Note not necessarily M RADAR VA. Stop thinking about yesterday.

[ZappBrannigan]

FGD135 - yes, agreed, good post. It does seem the interpretation of the procedures has changed quite significantly due to the replacement of the term "radar vectoring" to a much more general (and somewhat ambiguous) term.

[ollie_a]

Well, I went back through my old copies of MATS to find out when the change occurred. Looks like it was MATS version 3, issued on 12 March 2008. Here's what it had to say in the 'what's changed' section:

'Vectoring' to be replaced by 'ATS surveillance service' for visual approach at night and terrain clearance rules as Radar Terrain Clearance Charts are used to assign levels to aircraft under own navigation as well as when being vectored.

Please remember I'm not an approach controller so the application of the current rules will have to be explained by someone with more experience than me.

[Capn Bloggs]

As I said in post 48:
If I'm on a STAR, I'm NOT being radar vectored, but ATC is providing me with an ATC SS, descending me to the terrain lowest safe altitude (or to the limit of the CTA steps- thanks Dick...), from which they authorise me for a Visual Approach when I am on the VASI/GP.

That's probably another reason why they got rid of "radar vectoring".

I hardly think AsA and all it's controllers are dumb enough to blindly accept such a change to MATS just because some wordprocessing type decided to do a global search and replace on "Radar vectoring".

[No Further Requirements]

Capn Bloggs,

I was working a civil approach unit in March 2008 and knew nothing of this wording change. Up until I left in Sept 08 I was still using the procedure of giving VSA at night under own navigation inside 30NM from any level. I understand it is my obligation to read and accept the changes in MATS/AIP, but the fact that not one of my fellow controllers, supervisors or check-controllers knew of this is a little disturbing. This one small change to the wording makes a world of difference.

Re Darwin controllers and phraseology, if you had flown into the approach unit I was working in after this change, you would have heard us all using that phraseology. Clearly this one has slipped through to the keeper on both sides. I think your insinuation that the RAAF guys don't know their stuff is a little out of order. If the RAAF and AsA are making the same error, where do you stand now?

Cheers,

NFR.

[Pera]

ollie a,

What's the change request number?

[Capn Bloggs]

NFR,

I agree, if it were to slip through the cracks of many, it is a concern. Every amendment I get I scrutinise it closely with the current text to see what's really changed. I would have thought one of the most important calls an approach controller makes (at least the one of the most important I hear) would have pricked ears when it was changed. It would seem that an explanation was given; do you guys have a copy of MATS each, and if not why not?

If the rest of the country operated like the Darwin terminal area, there would be gridlock and chaos. Sorry, but that had been my experience. And why isn't there a visual STAR onto 11 from ALLEE? What a WOFTAM going to 10nm final from the southeast in gin-clear weather.

[FGD135]

I agree, if it were to slip through the cracks of many, it is a concern.
Ahem. If you're going to make such a significant change to a procedure, you don't just quietly change the words and sit back, hoping everybody notices.

No, you actually tell somebody.

An AIRAC, at the very least, would have done the job.

Every amendment I get I scrutinise it closely with the current text to see what's really changed.So you would have noticed this change when it occurred back in March 2008, then. And you must have a lot of time on your hands. Do you scrutinise every approach plate as well?

I hardly think AsA and all it's controllers are dumb enough to blindly accept such a change to MATS just because ...I would bet they are as blissfully unaware of this change as we were.

I have said this before but will say it again: the fact that nobody was told about this change does tend to suggest that the author had in mind only an innocent little terminology change - not a change to the procedure.

An important detail about Darwin, compared to other capital cities: There is no terrain around Darwin - you could approach Darwin at 1,500 ft AMSL from any direction within 30 NM and you would always have more than 1,000 ft terrain clearance! (The highest obstacle within 30 NM is a tower, at 550 ft AMSL, about 3-4 NM east of the aerodrome).

No other controlled aerodrome in Australia has this luxury. This means that the controllers at those other places may well be a little reluctant to issue the night visual approach from 30 NM. Take Perth, for example. Nowhere near as bad as Cairns or Townsville, terrain-wise, but from discussions with an approach controller there, I found that they have a "local" procedure whereby they don't issue them outside 10 NM.

Just one instance of a pilot demonstrating less than full knowledge of the night visual approach procedure would probably be enough to convince controllers at these places to forever be reserved with the visual approach clearances they issue.

ollie_a, thanks again - one more piece of the puzzle.

[Capn Bloggs]

And you must have a lot of time on your hands.
It is my job.

Do you scrutinise every approach plate as well?
What do you reckon? Of course not. Why on earth would I need to do that? And as you are, I assume, well aware, changes are published on each approach chart so one doesn't have to "scrutinise each approach chart", except of course when briefing the approach.:}

I have said this before but will say it again: the fact that nobody was told about this change does tend to suggest that the author had in mind only an innocent little terminology change - not a change to the procedure.

Conspiracy theory only.

Take Perth, for example. Nowhere near as bad as Cairns or Townsville, terrain-wise, but from discussions with an approach controller there, I found that they have a "local" procedure whereby they don't issue them outside 10 NM.
Rubbish. We regularly get a VA when assigned 2500ft outside 10nm. As the rules say, they CANNOT issue a VA UNTIL they assign the last minimum terrain altitude. It's not a matter of waiting for 10nm.

As Renurpp asked earlier, it would be helpful to know what airport the original poster was at when he posed his question.

[ollie_a]

What's the change request number?

6015

Extra text to meet the word count

[FGD135]

As the rules say, they CANNOT issue a VA UNTIL they assign the last minimum terrain altitude.

You've still got your blinkers on.

According to you then, the wording change to the VA requirements was not just an attempted terminology refinement, but a change to the rules.

So what about all the other places in the AIP where there occurred a similar change (i.e "ATS ss" instead of "radar something") - were all of these rule/procedure changes as well?

Yes? - that's an awful lot of rule and procedure changes to not be telling anybody about.

No? - So how come only the VA changes were rule changes? And just how do you know that?

[No Further Requirements]

It really sounds like to me they were just making a whole terminology change (ie, radar service/vectoring changed to ATC Surv. Service) and the intent was not a procedure change. Accidentally (or not?) they have made a HUGE change to the procedure. If that was the intent, it sure makes thing a little more complicated than they have to be. No traffic anywhere, visual at 30NM, let them go. Now you have to step them down. That's a rather large change in procedure.

As for Darwin STARs, it's another topic. I left there when it was still a 360 degree free for all and had the time of my life controlling diverse types of traffic. Can't speak for what it's like now.

Cheers,

NFR

[Capn Bloggs]

FDG,

Unbelievable. No? Yes? What??

I dunno. :{

[FGD135]

I spoke today with a gentlemen from ASA (or could have been CASA) who is involved in the amendment process. He confirmed that the terminology change was for the purpose of accommodating ADS-B.

He has begun a closer look at the effects of that wording change, and we will talk again tomorrow.

It was his opinion that the amendment was not for the purpose of changing the way the night visual approach was to be conducted.

[Counter-rotation]

FGD135,

Not surprised to hear that, and further proof (if that is in fact their final verdict) that things from the powers that be are often not very well considered... Please keep us (me at least) posted on your findings...

Capt Bloggs,

I wanted to reply to your comment in an earlier post (#38), but forgot! So here it is :}
I said that if you are descending IAW DGA steps during a visual approach, that restrictions on speed and manoeuvering inside 5 miles do not apply. At least that's what I meant to say... I hope that's how you took it, but you seemed to disagree.
The descent argument aside (albeit the central theme of this thread), am I understanding you correctly? I reckon iff ("iff" = if and only if) you can in fact descend IAW the DGA steps, what's wrong with:
1) tracking inbound to the aid
2) become visual and report same
3) get "cleared visual approach" (request lowest level if need to)
4) continue to the aid (your previously cleared track)
5) ignore restrictions like =< 180kts, =< 130kts for Cat B
6) from CCL area manouever onto final (or base etc. - IAW your cct joining instruction)
7) continue descent in CCA or from VASIS / PAPI and land

Stage 6 goes directly against the restriction on manouvering inside 5nm that we are all familiar with, which applies during conduct of a DGA approach... But this is a visual approach...

Can you agree with the above, or not - am I misreading your post? Thanks.

I thought I was the only one scrutinizing amendments! I used to get ribbed for how long I spent doing them too! It seems in this case I certainly did not catch the full implications of that particular "change" for what it was - thought it a mere terminology change. And yeah, as I said I don't believe the intent has changed. But the written word is the written word... We'll see what comes from FGD135's following up.

No Further Requirements,

Agree 10000% with your post. And this is at the heart of it for mine. A pilot tells you "visual" at 20nm (at night) - could happen. It's quiet, and you could previously give him "cleared visual approach" and leave him to it, but now you can't, because if you do he's stuck at his last level, until in the circling area, and you can't assign him a suitably lower level until closer in...

Could you give him (or her :O ) "when ready descend [lower level] not below the DGA steps, when established on final or circling area cleared visual approach"? A mouthful I know, but it would get the job done? Might be easier just to step them down!!
PS It's STARs galore in Darwin now, and very annoying too. I can understand it in IMC setting up a sequence to the straight-in IAF, but in VMC with no real traffic - bugger me... Just adds radio work and replanning descent close in when you either:
(i) get shortened up after being told you wouldn't
(ii) get no shortening when you were told to expect it
Not the end of the world, but - simply not neccessary...

CR.

[Counter-rotation]

Capt Bloggs (again!)

Disregard most of my previous, I get it. You were not against manouevering inside 5nm, just not until in the circling area - I concur. That is in fact the specific tracking requirements of the visual approach you have been cleared for! But I must add, you are not satisfying visual approach requirements from 5nm, you are satisfying them from the instant you are "cleared visual approach"! That's
(i)a minimum altitude ["a pilot must descend as neccessary"] and
(ii)a tracking requiremnet

I was thinking you meant no manouevering, period - straight to the aid (the MAPT), as you would for such an approach flown in IMC... That's definitely what the previous poster (#12) was implying, which is why I wrote "ignore anyone babbling...."

CR.

[Capn Bloggs]

if you are descending IAW DGA steps during a visual approach, that restrictions on speed and manoeuvering inside 5 miles do not apply.
IMO they do. Until you are in the Circling Area or are on final at 5nm/7nm on the VASI/10nm Gp+LLZ, then IMO you are on an instrument approach ie DGA and you have to do the approach properly. Barrelling around the 4nm arc at night using the DGA steps to get onto left base is not on.

I am not going to pull out my DGA chart just to save the ATC a few words. He can clear me down to the MVA, then a VA, thank you. Besides, some places don't have DGAs, and when they did in the old days, the DGA steps were 3nm closer than the CTA steps, so were no good for SI Apps anyway.

A dead horse is being flogged here. The new rules are quite simple and very pilot-friendly: descend as the nice ATC clears you until you look out the window, without worrying about terrain, hop into the circling area or onto the VASI/GP and land. TFE. Pilots doing DGAs into Primary Controlled airports are an anachronism of the past.

[Counter-rotation]

Never once mentioned a 4nm arc. Mentioned the circling area about 3 times.

Have a nice flight :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Never once mentioned a 4nm arc. Mentioned the circling area about 3 times.
I never said you did. I was merely using that as an example of manoeuvring inside the 5nm FAF on a DGA, outside the Circling Area.

Have a nice flight
I always do. Dunno about my FOs, though! :E

[ZappBrannigan]

A dead horse is being flogged here. The new rules are quite simple and very pilot-friendly: descend as the nice ATC clears you until you look out the window, without worrying about terrain, hop into the circling area or onto the VASI/GP and land. TFE. Pilots doing DGAs into Primary Controlled airports are an anachronism of the past.Thanks, sums it up nicely, I'm happy to leave it at that. I got into this topic as in-depth as I did as I'm still on the front end of the experience curve as an IFR pilot, and this type of discussion is good if it doesn't get too ridiculous.

[FGD135]

Had the final chat today with the gentleman of Brisbane. He had been discussing this issue with others in CASA/ASA.

He reported that although there had been no intention to change how night visual approaches were to be conducted, there had been, via the phraseology change, an attempt to clarify the requirements re descent below the last assigned level.

He ended by saying that that amendment would be reviewed, with a likely amendment to AIP in the next cycle.

[socks and thongs]

I'm just going to kick this off again slightly if I may, it's not in line with the discussion that took place but is still in regards to a VA.

I went in and out of Cairns for a while last year and found myself in the same position a couple of times on a Visual Appch to runway 15. This is only in regards to a day vis app, with a track coming in from the north-west (LHR direction).

On clear blue skies I'd call visual with approach and would then be cleared down to 3000 visual whilst following radar vectors heading south down the coastline. I would usually be cleared visual approach when around 15 miles out. The only problem is that a visual approach was impossible by this stage as at my altitude I couldn't maintain tracking requirements or I'd become part of the landscape as the direct track from where I was to the aid crosses (below) a ridge about 10 miles out.

On every occasion, I'd have to request tracking left (east) direct to 5nm final which would allow me to track further out over sea, to clear the terrain to get in that way. Each time, I'd get the 3000 visual clearance, and then the visual appch. Remaining at 5000 for instance would be impractical as manoevring and descent would be excessive after passing the ridge in the aircraft I was in.

Given the same conditions, is this the best way to approach this?


Cheers, S&T

[Lookleft]

This discussion has been very useful in helping me make sense of the instruction into LT the other night when at 14 miles we were at the MSA and told to make a visual approach without any reference to "when inside the circling area" or even "make DME arrival". We were expecting to be given some instruction to join the final leg of the VOR approach. When I rang the controller to clarify what he was expecting he basically indicated that whatever I wanted to do was acceptable to him! Our solution was to manouvre within the MSA sector that allowed us to descend on the VOR approach. Next time I will just request the Morris intercept but I stupidly thought that there was a reason we weren't offered it in the first place. :ugh:

[topdrop]

socks and thongs,

We're more than happy for you to request left of track - lot's of pilots do, not only because of the descent profile re terrain but also to avoid turbulence. Common request is via Double Island.

[socks and thongs]

Thanks for confirming that topdrop. I just thought I may have been missing something re the vis app clearance but it seems it's simply a bit of an anomaly of getting into CS under those specific conditions.

Thanks again.