Correct wording for a visual approach

[737drvr]

the other day the discussion came up about what is the correct wording for requesting a visual approach:

a: field in sight..

b: request visual
or
c: field insight, request visual

or is it something else completely?

Does ist vary by country/region (i.e scandinavia vs. the rest of the world) or is it ICAO universal?

Thanks for your help

[Spitoon]

Book in the UK says To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights may be authorised to execute visual approaches if the pilot reports that he can maintain visual reference to the surface and:
a) the reported cloud ceiling is not below the initial approach level; or
b) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the visibility will permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance exists that this can be accomplished.
ATC phraseology specified is 'Report visual' and/or 'Ceared visual approach runway (designator)'. CAP413, the UK Manual of Phraseology, gives an example of pilot phraseologyof 'G-AB over KTN 3000 feet field in sight, request visual approach' but I recall a huge number of variations which ultimately ended up with a clearance for a visual.

ICAO PANS-ATM is a bit more liberal and allows the controller to propose a visual approach. The UK rules are written in such a way as to imply that it can be pilot initiated only which results in some odd phraseology - I think I used to use 'Report if you get the field in sight and wish to continue visually'.

HTH.

[Crazy Voyager]

In Sweden a "field in sight"-call will be interpeted as a request for a visual approach.

I can dig up the AIP refrence if you want it.

[737drvr]

thanky you very much for the reply:ok:. So I guess , for me as a pilot the universaly correct phrase is; "field in sight request visual"

[radarman]

CV,

I always assumed that a pilot calling 'Field in sight' was implying he wanted a visual approach. Got caught out by some idiot making the call, and when I cleared him for a visual approach he replied 'Thanks, but we'd like to stay with radar for a while'. :ugh: After that I always asked 'Confirm you are requesting a visual approach?' when a pilot volunteered some meaningless comment like 'Fully visual'.

Advice to pilots: when you have a request, (not just for a visual) state it clearly and plainly. That way ATC can get working on it straight away, without having to second guess, or ask supplementary questions.

[Sonnendec]

For me it´s enough with a "field in sight" call, but a "request visual approach" always help, of course :ok:

[ron83]

In Sweden a "field in sight"-call will be interpreted as a request for a visual approach

Same thing in our country too.

And as has been said above,I also been caught by field in sight,after clearing for visual,still requesting ILS. So what the purpose to report it in sight if you stay with ILS.:ugh:

[2 sheds]

ICAO PANS-ATM specifies the phraseology for a pilot requesting a visual approach:
REQUEST VISUAL APPROACH !!

2 s

[SevernTMA]

Can someone tell me where it says the pilot must be visual with the airfield?

As quoted above its my understanding he or she only needs to be visual with the surface....

[Foxy Loxy]

Quite right, Severn TMA. But it's been my experience that some airline SOPs require them to only request a visual if they are "airfield in sight."

[fat'n'grey]

Don't forget (as the forum replies are from both UK and overseas (ICAO)) there is a difference with ICAO as to when a Visual Approach may be authorised....Doc 4444 states:

6.5.3.3 An IFR flight may be cleared to execute a visual approach provided the pilot can maintain visual reference to the terrain and:

a) the reported ceiling is at or above the approved initial approach level for the aircraft so cleared; or
b) the pilot reports at the initial approach level or at any time during the instrument approach procedure that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed.

6.5.3.4 Separation shall be provided between an aircraft cleared to execute a visual approach and other arriving and departing aircraft.

Seems straight forward enough? But under ICAO if an acft has been vectored then the pilot must report the airport (or preceeding acft) in sight before a Visual Approach is authorised...

8.9.5.1 The radar controller may initiate radar vectoring of an aircraft for visual approach provided the reported ceiling is above the minimum altitude applicable to radar vectoring and meteorological conditions are such that, with reasonable assurance, a visual approach and landing can be completed.

8.9.5.2 Clearance for visual approach shall be issued only after the pilot has reported the aerodrome or the preceding aircraft in sight, at which time radar vectoring would normally be terminated.

Oh dear!

[Touny]

Good evening everyone,
If I were you I'd go with the "field in sight request visual",
In some airfields, controllers are not allowed to propose a visual approach (or even a sidestep), even if you declared you had the field in sight.

Furthermore, if you just say "request visual", most of the time, the answer will be "call me back visual". You save a little time by saying everything from the start.

[ATC Watcher]

Well after the Cagliari High court final decision to send 2 controllers in jail for 2 years for agreeing to a Visual APP (requested by the crew that ended up badly) , the chances of continuing making Visuals in IFR are taking a serious blow, regardless on how you ask.
In Italy at least it looks like it is over.
LIXX (ITALY)
A) ITALY B) 16 MAR 2011 00:01 C) 13 JUN 2011 23:59
E) IFR OPERATIONS NO CLEARANCE FOR VISUAL APPROACH ISSUED.
REF AIP ENR 1.3-1
(1A1530/2011LI)

[blissbak]

In Italy the requirement is the ground reference, recalled by pilot reporting "VISUAL", and that's all, field in sight as told before is a requirement when working on a vectoring for visual, and the radar vectoring will be terminated upon the said report and the given visual approach clearance.
Everything said before is what is applied about separations, and as reported, if you will do everything by the book, yea, they'll jail you :hmm:

[twentypoint4]

UK manual: reported ceiling is at or above the approved initial approach level for the aircraft so cleared

ICAO: reported ceiling is above the minimum altitude applicable to radar vectoring

Would someone be kind enough to explain what each of these statements mean? From my understanding there is potentially thousands of feet between each of these levels. Or am I mightily confused? I would love a simple explanation from someone in the know.

Cheers