Visual approaches

[Check Airman]

Going into a US city a few nights ago, a large UK carrier was cleared for a visual approach ahead of us. Shortly thereafter, they asked the controller if the ILS was functioning. It was not- (they had just turned the airport around, I suppose they hadn't flipped the switch yet).

The pilot insisted that the ILS be turned on, otherwise they would require another runway. My question is, was this crew just being difficult, or is there some general rule that would prevent them from simply following the pink line, or quickly loading the RNAV approach?

[Pontius]

I would say the crew was not ' just being difficult'. The crew of any 'large UK carrier' flying to the USA is more that capable of flying a visual approach but, sensibly in my opinion, would rather make use of the best facilities offered by the airport and decline a last-minute change to the briefed approach.

You don't mention where in the US this occurred but if it was on the West coast then, after a fairly significant flight time from the UK, the last thing that's needed is a sudden change of plan when one might not be absolutely 100% top of one's game. Yes, I agree with your next statement that we should all be flexible, adaptable and able to step up when required but this is not one of those situations. Again, it would be a non-event for those 'local' pilots who frequent the same airports regularly but, in my experience, longhaul flying often means not visiting the same place in a year or more and I would certainly not be doing anything like 'quickly loading the RNAV approach', or anything else that would see me rushed, with the potential of making mistakes, in order to get on the ground a few minutes quicker than I would otherwise. If the ILS was declared U/S then, fine, let's carry out another type of approach but I'll just delay the commencement of that approach until we've had the chance to chat about it.

Clearly an emergency situation requiring me to get on the deck as soon as possible would be met with a different response but in this situation I think the crew did the right thing and I would have done the same......the bar will still be open 10 minutes later :ok:

Edited to ask: Did ATC manage to find the ILS switch and turn it on without delaying or inconveniencing anyone?

[FlyingStone]

There are companies which forbid visual approches at night and that allow RNAV/RNP approaches only during day VMC (unless you are equipped with a serviceable GPS).

I would agree that if you're not familiar with the airport and the weather is not doing you a favour, it's best to ask for a delaying vector or holding to sort things out.

[Check Airman]

Thanks for the replies gents. It was a clear night on the east coast of the US. I believe they managed to get the ILS turned on, however the controller seemed a bit confused.

This leads to another question. Say you've briefed the ILS approach, and ATC offers a visual approach, can you accept it, or would that require another briefing?

[Jwscud]

In my company, we can't accept an approach we haven't briefed.

Of course in Italy, all visual approaches are illegal.

[AerocatS2A]

Thanks for the replies gents. It was a clear night on the east coast of the US. I believe they managed to get the ILS turned on, however the controller seemed a bit confused.

This leads to another question. Say you've briefed the ILS approach, and ATC offers a visual approach, can you accept it, or would that require another briefing?
For me, if there is no reason to believe the ILS is unserviceable then the difference between an ILS approach and a visual approach would be that the visual approach would not have the ILS minimums bugged, and we would not go through the ILS SOP calls such as checking the glideslope at the outer marker, "100 above" call, "minimums" etc. But the ILS would still be tuned and displayed and the autopilot, if used, would be coupled to the ILS. The phrase we would use when briefing the approach is that it is "a visual approach backed up by the ILS."

If the ILS was known to be unserviceable then obviously it wouldn't be tuned and we wouldn't be coupling the A/P to it. We would brief a distance that we expect to be on the PAPIs and able to start a visual descent. We know in advance that we aren't getting any help other than the PAPIs and are ready for that.

If the ILS is serviceable and we have briefed an ILS approach but are cleared for a visual then that is a "no brainer" we follow the ILS down but don't bother with the ILS SOP calls unless one of us wants to do one for practice or something.

The situation you are describing is different from all of those though. They were expecting a navaid, the ILS, to be available. But at the last minute they find out it isn't. This means that the way they had briefed and planned to fly the approach was no longer available to them and they needed to either change their plan, or get the ILS turned on. Whether or not it is ok to change the plan at late notice depends on a heap of things and I'm not about to pass judgement one way or another.

[Pontius]

This leads to another question. Say you've briefed the ILS approach, and ATC offers a visual approach, can you accept it, or would that require another briefing?

I can only speak from the point of view of one 'large UK carrier' and say there is nothing specifically preventing accepting a visual approach, having briefed an ILS. Whether the crew would actually want to or not would, of course, depend on the factors they feel relevant at the time and it sounds like the crew in question decided they'd rather have all the toys they can muster, rather than change at the last minute.

Regular US-goers will know this happens all the time and I've probably lost count of the number of times that I've planned and briefed for an ILS approach and then been radar vectored to a base leg and told that I'm "cleared for the visual". However, on every occasion the ILS has been radiating and I've done just what Aerocat has said, basically looked out of the window but also sneaky peeks at the ILS, with none of the 'normal' calls. Clearly the crew involved in this matter didn't feel happy about accepting a late change without the ILS to help them on a pseudo visual-type approach and I certainly would not try and second guess nor adversely comment on their decision.

I always imagine the regular flyers into the likes of MEX considered us to be over-conservative pansies the way we'd be slow and stabilised a million miles out on the ILS, while they hoofed their machines around a tight visual circuit. Luckily I've had the advantage of getting all that stuff out of my system when young and steely in the military, so I don't get too paranoid when laughed at for not accepting a split-arse arrival ;)

[glendalegoon]

Here is a helpful hint.

On initial call, simply say: Speedbird 7, 10,000 with Zulu REQUEST ILS APPROACH 28R.

Or whatever runway you want. Or just say request vectors ILS approach. And if you are willing to take a short turn at the marker, tell them.

The way to work is know what you want and effectively communicate it to ATC.

NOW they might say: Roger, plan to hold for 30 minutes to sequence for ILS or accept immediate visual approach clearance.

many factors lead to the visual, including being vectored above glideslope.

[Bealzebub]

Our SOP on briefings includes the rider that a briefing should (where applicable) include a summary of the pilots intentions should the opportunity for a visual approach arise. That aside, any brief is really a communication so that both (all) parties are aware of the flying pilots intentions. As a brief it is an overview rather than a set of architectural blueprints. Very often the plan prior to the approach will be very different to that actually flown. As such it is subject to constant modification all the time.

A good brief should be succinct and to the point covering the major threat error management points. In the ordinary course of events it should lend itself to easy modification and mutual understanding.

Nothing (in the ordinary course of events) should prevent a crew from accepting a visual approach if they choose to do so simply by virtue of the fact that it wasn't the principal plan when the brief was discussed. Similarly nothing obligates the crew to accept any unplanned approach if they do not consider it appropriate to their circumstances at any given time.

A point to consider with regards to foreign crew operating into busy US airports (and it should be a part of the TEM brief) is that there a lot of "gotcha's" such things as land and hold short and the fact that your ATC provided separation and co-ordination can suddenly vanish when you accept the often innocuous and helpful suggestion "visual." After a long and uneventful transatlantic flight a lot of relatively unfamiliar and uncommon "Swiss cheese slices" can suddenly get shuffled in front of you. That might also help to explain the wariness and caution that was perceived.

[BOAC]

It seems to be fading from the human sphere, but in my day a 'visual' was always the simplest type of approach. Minima - no: vectors - no: speed control- no: seeing where you are going - yes!

Now it seems to be a subject of terror. Oh dear.

[galaxy flyer]

Sometimes , US ATC had planned the ILS, but separation became issue closer in which frequently why you will be asked, "can you accept a visual?" The controller really saying separation is looking comprised for the IFR approach, but the visual will save both of us some time and effort.

[Check Airman]

Clay,

Unfortunately, I have no way of answering those last questions.

Thanks all. It seems that your SOP's are more restrictive than ours. On a daily basis, we deviate more than that on the briefed procedure without much fuss.

[BARKINGMAD]

1. Are you visual and likely to remain so?

2 Have you plumbed into your pink string machine a 10 mn range ring around the landing threshold, why not do it for EVERY APPROACH, EVERYWHERE?

3 Have you briefed yourself and your oppo that you want to be crossing that line @ 3200' + threshold elevation?

4 If not, then why not? It will assist greatly with energy management and general S A and renders the lack of a glideslope to a minor annoyance, if even that.

5 Thereafter, fly a visual approach like what you wuz taught long time ago. If the less experienced of you 2 is still uncomfortable, then they can drive towards the runway, aiming to cross the 5 mile mark @ 1600' + elevation, by which time the blindest of us all should have acquired the PAPIs or the runway perspective and must be able to complete the flight without trauma and definitely without hassling ATC re non-availability of ILS.

I learned this trick from my book on rocket science, alas now out of print.........:)

[Piltdown Man]

Now we can see the problem of visual approaches for many UK operators. Getting them to do one is almost impossible. Also last minute runway changes are complex for them to say the least. There are times when I think that the people who run some UK training departments don't trust their pilots and are scared of flying. To make up for that they have highly restrictive SOPs and unless everything briefed to the last pointless detail they are unable to commence an approach. This would make sense if it did some good and the brief could be remembered during the approach - but incident reports show that this is not the case. BOAC has summed it up beautifully.

[sheppey]

Now it seems to be a subject of terror. Oh dear.

Agree - even though on a visual approach there is a PAPI to help with glide slope guidance. The next thing is some clot will transmit a PAN call when using a PAPI because it ain't an ILS. In Melbourne last year an A330 from SE Asia was given the runway 34 VOR approach via DME arc in perfect CAVOK. Wind 340/30 knots. Runway length enormous.

The captain refused the runway and requested runway 27 ILS (much shorter than Runway 34 by some 1000 metres) and was perfectly happy to take the 30 knot crosswind component which meant he could couple to the ILS until AP disconnect at 50-100 feet. There are wide body captains of foreign carriers that lack the confidence to make visual approaches even when PAPI available. Asiana comes to mind at SFO. What an indictment on their training department that cause highly experienced captains to get the yips like student pilots.

[172_driver]

Now we can see the problem of visual approaches for many UK operators. Getting them to do one is almost impossible. Also last minute runway changes are complex for them to say the least.

UK based aircraft going into non-radar Italian airport. Severely clear skies and unlimited visibility. ILS approach changes into straight-in VOR. Unfortunately they're number one and we're in the aircraft behind, forced to join the hold above them. Ironically, despite the 15 min in the hold to brief the VOR, its execution resulted in a G/A :rolleyes: Now they ended up in the back of the queue with a few more inbounds and finally landed when we were ready to depart. True story!

[Miserlou]

As a bit of an old-schooler, I am all for visual approaches with no additional aids even though SOPs do say to use all available aids in the execution of a visual approach.

However, visual approaches at night are the easiest type of approach to screw up.
The number of US carriers/military who accidentally land at the wrong airport proves this so for a foreign carrier to refuse the visual is totally understandable.

I would often use the runway as an RNAV point with an RMI pointer to line it up like an NDB approach.

[algaerwin]

Sorry to bring this up again, but i'm rather confused.
If the controller has told you to expect a “vectors for visual approach” initially, then somehow issued a ILS approach clearance when you were approaching the final, would you have to brief the ILS again?

[titaniumwings]

Can someone share whether there is any restriction for the need for vertical guidance for visual approach? We were taught to do visual approaches on our small props by judging runway perspective (without even PAPI) but it this possible for jet or airliner for that matter? Is it common in some places or companies? Having being trained since the beginning, how wrong would this person be if he tries to do this on a jet (would this person get it to 4 or 2 deg glidepath-and the consequence of that)?

Also what is the minimum separation for visual approaches especially from the pilot's practical point of view? Especially from an airliner's perspective. I understand that by the ATC when they vector for the visual approach in the terminal area in some countries.

[glendalegoon]

IF you are cleared for a visual approach in the USA and there is PAPI etc or Electronic Glideslope, you use it. You are required in a turbine powered aircraft to remain at or above an electronic glideslope until required for landing. (normal bracketing aside) and this is a regulation.

so, use it if it is there (electronic glideslope). and if not, use your best judgement or other methods like altitude vs distance (300 feet per nautical mile )

And if you can't, then request help from ATC and then go take some more lessons.

[grounded27]

I would say the crew was not ' just being difficult'. The crew of any 'large UK carrier' flying to the USA is more that capable of flying a visual approach but, sensibly in my opinion, would rather make use of the best facilities offered by the airport and decline a last-minute change to the briefed approach.

At the cost of fuel and time...I have never experienced a crew refusing a visual. Children of magenta. There would have to be circumstances greater than a simple expectation of an ILS to throw a pilot off his game. To lazy to fly rather push buttons. I can not imagine that it would have been a last-minute change that was not soon enough for the crew to prepare for a visual approach that they could configure for unless there were circumstances that have not been presented.

[Hobo]

Of course in Italy, all visual approaches are illegal.

Is this correct??

[FlightDetent]

I believe so, AIP restriction. Somebody please correct me, I seem to remember the scope of the regulation is all IFR traffic.

[Tom!]

Yes I believe the visual approach ban in Italy is because of the accident in Cagliari a while back.

[BOAC]

I can not imagine that it would have been a last-minute change that was not soon enough for the crew to prepare for a visual approach that they could configure for unless there were circumstances that have not been presented. - don't you believe that! I cannot remember where it was a few years back, cleared for the ILS Rxx at YYYY, 3 track miles from loc intercept re-cleared the VOR approach. 1 go at guessing ....................:) ASR followed.

[aterpster]

glendalegoon:

IF you are cleared for a visual approach in the USA and there is PAPI etc or Electronic Glideslope, you use it. You are required in a turbine powered aircraft to remain at or above an electronic glideslope until required for landing. (normal bracketing aside) and this is a regulation.

True, but only at an airport with an operating control tower.

[galaxy flyer]

Yes I believe the visual approach ban in Italy is because of the accident in Cagliari a while back.

Ok, if they crashed on an ILS would the have banned ILS approaches. This is scurvy thinking at the highest (lowest) level. Basic flying is visual approaches; they shouldn't require much briefing beyond the crew confirming the airport/traffic is in sight and the right one, everything else was in the IFR approach brief. I might say, "plan a 2 mile final" as I entered the pattern so the other pilot will be ready to speak if I go sailing past a 2 mile final.

TW. About a minimum of 3 Mike spacing, maybe 5, I arrange so the traffic ahead is clear by the time you hit 3/4 of mile on final.

[aterpster]

g.f.

Basic flying is visual approaches; they shouldn't require much briefing beyond the crew confirming the airport/traffic is in sight...

Several years ago a Delta flight came very close to hitting the mountain at KTUS that is on the extended centerline of Runway 11L.

It almost happened to a friend of mine, too, many years ago in a Piper PA-24.

In both cases they were arriving from the west and didn't follow basic approach angle techniques.

Night visual approaches take some careful planning in mountainous areas.

[galaxy flyer]

aterpster,

No argument from me, our standard is night visual will display the approach and the altitudes will comply with the IFR altitudes unless at a VERY familiar field. We do loads of arrivals at strange airports, the nature of our business, so the instrument approach is the default at night. Also, use of the PAPI is briefed and used only in close proximity of the airport. KSDL being one scary example.

I was in F-100 RTU at TUS after a plane in a formation was scraped off the terrain, so all too aware of the limits. But, I find the near total aversion and confusion on day visuals to be frustrating. New pilots must be trained to fly and flying a visual in good conditions should not be a life or death challenge.

[Tom!]

Galaxy flyer: in the Italian case, do to the way the legal system works, the two ATC controllers involved were inexplicably sent to jail for two years although the terrain responsibility changed to the pilots on being cleared for the visual. The legal thing caused the visual approach ban and I don't blame the controllers for wanting to cover their backsides

[galaxy flyer]

No underestimating how silly the Italians can be, I guess. Under that outcome, it makes some sort of strange sense.

[aterpster]

g.f.

KSDL being one scary example.

No doubt about that. The VGSI for Runway 21 passes through a mountain.

[West Coast]

Only fatal TUS RTU ever had in the Hun.

Unfortunately the issues continue. FOQA data shows there's issues with night visuals from the west to 11L. Not just my airline, infoshare conference indicates it's a good chunk of all 121 carriers that service TUS.

[aterpster]

Yep. Using the ILS (or LPV) as a backup requires some effort.

[glendalegoon]

wow, it sure is hard to place a radio frequency in a nav head, or punch some buttons in a fancy FMS to get the ILS to come up.


A few years ago, I was making a non precision (LOC) approach to chicago midway, with a circle to land towards the southeast. I had briefed my copilot (737) who had made us three hours late because SHE forgot to bring her pilot license in her new purse. So it was night time.

So, there we were, snow, but still technically above basic VFR and I told her, once I break off the approach and enter downwind, I want YOU to place the ILS freq to our landing runway on my nav and slew the course selector to the inbound course, ok?

she said: WHY? I've never seen anyone do that before.

I told her, DO IT and I will explain on the ground.

AFTER we landed, I asked her why she wouldn't do what I told her to do. She looked at me as if she were a deer in the headlights.

I explained that once we were off the approach and had the airport in sight, I would fly the downwind/base and intercept final and utilize the ILS for both glideslope information and to make sure we were landing on the correct runway as there were parallel runways.

She said she had never seen that before. I still shake my head over her and the real thing that bothered me, she really couldn' t understand why.

Always use everything you can to make sure you are going to the correct place at the correct altitudes . And if you haven't figured out all the things a pilot has available to find an airport, its time to really sit down and think.

[galaxy flyer]

Here's yet another maneuver where a HUD is a marvel. The 3 degree dotted line is placed on the touchdown zone, then get the FPV on the dotted line, presto. Perfection. Yes, turn off the FD, acknowledge any "glide slope" warning, turn off the damned thing with the "G/S Inhibit" switch light and fly.

In the simpler times, the PF would say, "G/S acknowledged", the co-pilot would put in a new freq in the ILS head, thus getting rid of a useless warning, and bob's your uncle.

[framer]

The pilot insisted that the ILS be turned on, otherwise they would require another runway. My question is, was this crew just being difficult, or is there some general rule that would prevent them from simply following the pink line, or quickly loading the RNAV approach?
Had the Captain flown with the F/o before? If not and the f/o was PF then the Captain might not be too keen to roll the dice on the f/o doing a good job of it.
Was it the Captains first month of command and they were dead keen on being conservative for a few months until they settled in?
Did they have an MEL that increased their workload a bit and the Captain decided any increase in workload wasn't in the interests of safety?
Was it the second sector of command upgrade line flying with a check Captain in the right seat? ( Asiana anyone?)
Was it an annual line check on an experienced Captain who learnt decades ago to keep it simple when being checked?
Had they forgotten to put the seatbelt signs on earlier and were glad of the chance to give the cabin a bit more time?.......Silly I know but there are hundreds of quite legitimate reasons to operate in a conservative manner. A change to the plan late in the piece at an unfamiliar airport at night is not ideal, so if it can be easily avoided then it should be easily avoided IMO.
That said........ I don't think we hand fly visual approaches enough and as a result pilots are losing confidence in their own abilities to fly aircraft. It is a trend that needs addressing but I doubt this was the time to be addressing it.

[BOAC]

she said: WHY? I've never seen anyone do that before. - of course, she MIGHT have been right had the MAP required the original ILS/course?

[Superpilot]

I still shake my head over her and the real thing that bothered me, she really couldn' t understand why.

I would put this down to human factors. You tried to deliver a technical explanation to someone who was already 3 hours behind the aircraft and therefore probably taken back by the speed at which the whole thing just materialised (I've flown with 20k hour captains who have become totally rattled by circling approaches, forgetting to call for final flaps and checklists - due to preoccupations). On top of that, and to compound her disbelief, she probably flew with countless others who never did what you did (despite your sound reasoning).