Visual approaches Radio Minimums or Baro [Archive]

Capn Bloggs

7th Apr 2016, 06:57

W have quite clear requirements in our AIP for a Visual Approach, and until they are achieved and the crew advises ATC that they are "Visual" ie they can comply with those requirements, then ATC cannot issue a visual approach clearance.

If cleared for a visual approach, you comply with the STAR (if you are on one) or you track to 5nm from the airport then position for a circuit/pattern or as otherwise directed eg "direct to left base". You must still get a separate clearance to land from the tower. The is no "minima" per se.

A and C

7th Apr 2016, 08:13

Minima for a visual approach ???

Don't you just look out of the window and if you can see the runway then you land the aircraft.

Fly4Business

7th Apr 2016, 08:56

Minima for a visual approach ???

Don't you just look out of the window and if you can see the runway then you land the aircraft.
I am all with you, but I guess the confusion came from mixing legal ops with bad habits. In my view the discussion is NIL, because if it becomes reality, somebody did leave the legal path. But, I have to admit, there are places, were "visual approach" is misused, worst example for me the small metal "VMC between layers at IFR pickup" lie, but this has little to do with good airmenship.

Skyjob

7th Apr 2016, 09:44

COMPANY MINIMA, sure I understand, but in all cases references to any set minima should be taken as AAL, thus never Radio Altimeter due sloping terrain...

CaptainMongo

7th Apr 2016, 13:45

I don't know what part of the world you are in but my understanding is that there are no minimums for a visual approach. There are none published for a visual procedure. At my company we do use 300'baro on the Airbus for published visual approaches but that is only for computer logic.

The FAA doesn't recognize any minimums for visual approaches except for minimum weather requirements possibly.
ZB,

What aircraft and what logic are you referring to?

Thanks,

hikoushi

8th Apr 2016, 22:33

US carriers (including mine) usually just leave the "minimums" at the baro minimum for whatever approach you have briefed as backup to your visual, or baro mins at 200 AFE otherwise. RA mins are in my experience at least generally only used for cat 2 and 3 approaches. These approaches have been flight checked and certified at RA minimums, so you are guaranteed to not have false minimums call outs due to terrain contouring, as previously pointed out.

One logical reason for keeping a "minimum" set as SOP on a visual is to prompt the flying pilot to make a "landing" callout sometime just before the flare. This is a last minute "I'm still alive" check to confirm to the pilot monitoring that the PF is in fact not incapacitated at the most critical point in the arrival.

Zaphod Beblebrox

8th Apr 2016, 23:33

At AA, the US side on the Bus, we set 300 in the baro field on a Published Visual Approach procedure. FOM 2f.2.8 RNAV Visual and VMS/CVFP Visual Approaches. Approach Procedures 1. d. Enter BARO altitude of 300ft AFE on the PERF APPR page.

I do not know the actual reason for this but we do it at DCA, (Washington National) for the RNAV-F, river visual approach.

RAT 5

9th Apr 2016, 11:04

I'm not sure if you are making a visual approach to an instrument runway. If so, and at TOD you have already briefed the instrument approach and set the minima. Why alter the bug? Just leave it.
If making a visual to a non-instrument runway in severe clear VMC then some guys set airport +500' for the land/GA stable gate criteria. However, how many pax operations operate onto non instrument approach runways? There has to be something, if nothing more than a cloud-break let down.

Being738

10th Apr 2016, 09:27

plenty of caribbean airports lacks of precission approaches and good weather comes around so why not try it

CaptainMongo

11th Apr 2016, 00:49

If flying a RNAV-V approach there are no minimums. It is, by definition, a visual approach. As opposed to a RNAV (GPS) etc approach where we set a barometer minimum (per operator)

On our aircraft if a barometric min is set, the FD's will command approach NAV
until 50' below the barometric min or 400' RA, the FD's then revert to HDG/VERT SPD. I imagine the reversion is to remind the pilot he or she is now on a visual approach and to not blindly follow the FD's to TD.

TypeIV

11th Apr 2016, 14:29

This makes no sense at all to me.

Either you're visual or you are not. If you lose sight of the runway you go around. If you cannot see the runway you do not commence a visual approach hence you disregard the minimums. Why set a minimum that has no use?

latetonite

12th Apr 2016, 13:02

So tell me, at what point on a visual approach should you become 'visual'?

Capn Bloggs

12th Apr 2016, 13:17

By the 25nm or 10nm MSA, whatever applies at the time. :ok:

Being738

12th Apr 2016, 17:24

or 500 AAL vertically

RAT 5

12th Apr 2016, 18:13

IMHO, in the world of regulated & regimented public pax operations the concept of Minima is well understood and expected. It's removal causes confusion. Most operators have a 'landing gate' at which point there is a decision to continue a stable approach or GA. This is also a fundamental safety addition that has been introduced over time. Its disrespect has been shown to create incidents/accidents.
This philosophy applies to all approaches, even visual ones. A decision has to be made. So setting a 'decision point' is not so daft and has great merit & necessity. Considering some of the screw ups on the 'not so often practiced visual approaches' by large pax jets it can be claimed it is most relevant.
I've flown single crew visual sectors many times. if it wasn't going to be visual at destination you didn't depart. It was a different environment. However, I believe the question was aimed at the more normal MCC pax IFR type operation. In that case I believe a decision point is a good idea, so why not set it at the IFR DA point and still keep the landing gate active? With nothing set it can lead to the landing gate criteria being overlooked, and the mental model being that a landing is assured. Not so healthy.

B2N2

13th Apr 2016, 19:03

OP,

Are you talking about published visual approaches approaches like into EWR or a "visual approach" after you've reported the airport in sight?
Personally I dislike visual approaches so I won't call the airport in sight unless I'm somewhat lined up with the landing runway in which case I'll fly the published minima for the relevant instrument approach anyway.
Even on a "visual approach" I call out 'minimums, landing' and I back up baro with the RA.

galaxy flyer

13th Apr 2016, 20:09

Why the hate for visuals?

GF

qwertyuiop

13th Apr 2016, 20:23

Topics like this make me smile. It shows how people view aviation differently to others.
I flew into Minorca a couple of days ago and you could see the airfield from TOD. We were number 1 and cleared for a viz approach. All fully briefed and as expected.
All my FO was interested in was "what is the DH".
My response " fully stable by 1000' or we go around" again as briefed.
I feel my generation does see aviation slightly differently to the youngsters. No criticism at all but dinosaurs like me who are happy to look out the window and land will soon be outlawed.

The Dominican

14th Apr 2016, 02:34

Not this nonsense again...!

Piltdown Man

14th Apr 2016, 07:43

I'm getting the impression some people are scared of flying. Others appear to unable to fly unless they have rules, regulations and procedures to hang onto like a security blanket. We are talking about a simple procedure where you decide where to point the aircraft and not ATC. And there is no MDA, because you have sufficient visual reference to continue, like you do at the end of an instrument approach. It's just that this happens a lot earlier.

Given the choice, I'll always do a visual approach and I consider myself very fortunate in so much that I normally get to do one or two a week. It's just a shame that there are no visual departures because I'd like to do those as well. But that would be too radical because airports like to make the same houses suffer on every departure.

PM

Pin Head

14th Apr 2016, 13:33

Visual approach must be stable by 500.
Circling approach must be available by 300.

There is no minima for a visual approach.

Right Way Up

14th Apr 2016, 14:53

Being738 - Flight Simmer by chance?

A and C

15th Apr 2016, 17:22

You have hit the nail on the head, the usual reason for hiding behind rules regulations and SOP's is a lack of manual flying skill and self confidence.

The rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

cpt

15th Apr 2016, 18:51

This is so true "A&C" ! Regulatiions and SOPs are now taken as dogmas that can't even be questioned without being categorized as a "deviant"
Binary reasoning logic need system managers robots, and pilots have been warned few years ago !

B2N2

13th May 2016, 01:27

Why the hate for visuals?

Cause of C-17 Landing at Too-Small Airport Revealed | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/news/cause-c-17-landing-too-small-airport-revealed)

NTSB: Southwest pilots ?did not realize they were at wrong airport until they landed? | Safety content from ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/safety/ntsb-southwest-pilots-did-not-realize-they-were-wrong-airport-until-they-landed)

Sriwijaya Air Pilot Suspended for Landing at Wrong Airport (http://airnation.net/2012/10/18/sriwijaya-air-pilot-suspended-landing/)

Because at the end of a 14hr duty day I like my job...that's why..:hmm:

CaptainMongo

13th May 2016, 04:15

vilas

13th May 2016, 05:53

A an C
The rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
These are famous last words in many accidents. Unless you are a bird you are not wise in air since you have no instincts. When you abandon SOPs you are like a blind man in unknown territory.

Piltdown Man

13th May 2016, 06:55

I may have given the impression that I ignore the rules and SOPs relevant to my operation. I don't. But I'm very fortunate in so much that we can do most things because our SOPs (virtually the manufacturer's, word for word, including typos and spelling mistakes) are flexible enough to cover most things that we need to be able to do to fly safely and efficiently. But this flexibility also allows those with, shall we say 'less confidence', to take a more conservative approach (if that is the right word). I'm part of broad church - probably one with many gods. But it does work.

PM

jriv

16th May 2016, 03:11

SOP, rules, and regulations have made commercial aviation the success it currently is. To argue otherwise, to argue SOP are only for the NOOBs is BS. 81 percent of incidents between 1979 and 1994 had the Captain as PF. A statistic which should make thinking men think.

We have over 13,000 pilots at my carrier. There are over 2000 pilots on my fleet alone. Without SOP we would have 2000 independent operators.

I shake my head when I read stuff I have seen on this thread. Don't like your SOP, get it changed. Intentional SOP non compliance? There is a litany accidents attributed to that. A pilot killing him or herself because he or she is so stupid to think they know better than everyone else and intentionally violate SOP is unfortunate.

What pisses me off to high heaven is when they kill their passengers in the process of being so incredibly stupid.

I haven't read where anybody suggested breaking SOP.

At my airline we only fly A320s. Our SOP says to insert an "appropriate" number in the appropriate minimums field. On a visual that would mean leaving it blank. I fly with plenty of guys who put the ils mins there, which is "inappropriate" because we are not flying an ils.

And I hate the extra auto call outs. I don't need the airplane shouting things right before I land when I'd rather not miss ATC clearing an airplane to take off on an intersecting runway.

fox niner

16th May 2016, 06:47

We fly visual approaches regularly at our home base. It is actively encouraged by our training dept. It pays off, because it adds confidence, which is something that is not measurable in dollars or euro's.
You can't buy confidence.
So. which main ports around the globe offer visual approaches on a regular basis?
Amsterdam
JFK
Copenhagen
Osaka Kansai

Mikehotel152

16th May 2016, 06:59

A 'visual approach' at my carrier has evolved into a self-positioned non-precision approach with a 'FAF' and a requirement to use the automatics until established on final approach and a minima 500' above AD elevation.

This has arguably come about because of so many 'ace pilots' mis-flying their visual approaches and setting off the EGPWS or contravening criterion of the OFDM, but it's also part of a forward-looking policy to have SOPs that cater for the lower level of hand flying experience in the flight deck.

Given that this is a civilian transport operation and not a Red Bull air-race, it's arguably an understandably cautious attitude by the airline. A catch-22 too. Less practice means less spatial awareness. Less spatial awareness leads to some people blindly trusting the instruments and FMC.

Smokey Lomcevak

16th May 2016, 09:30

The visual approach can be a useful TEM tool. There may certain threats associated with a certain conventional IAP to the runway in use. Take EGPF rwy 23 for example - the terrain and subsequent MRVA means that radar vectoring can be quite precise, in particular the timings at which lower altitude clearances are given. All it takes is one long transmission on the freq and one may not receive clearance to descend and become rather high rather quickly. Subsequent ILS intercept inside the FAF and above the glideslope can and does happen. There is also the possibility of EGPWS warnings if one is working hard to recover the situation. A positive ISA deviation and temperature error in summer can also exacerbate the scenario. I have seen a variety of effective mitigation measures used by crews.

Another solution, however, is to avoid the threats altogether. Flying a visual approach to anywhere between a 3 to 6 mile final keeps one inside the terrain, and avoids the need to rely on lower radar altitudes. I find this is a useful way of selling the idea to a less confident crew member. This obviously requires the weather to be conducive, which I'll admit isn't a particularly common occurrence in this part of the world...

It seems now to be commonly agreed that non-precision approaches carry a higher degree of risk than an ILS. I find a visual approach is also a way of avoiding risk here - In my experience, attempting to predict FMC/FMGC behaviour, and hoping it does what you want it to do, involves reasonably high workload. What really saps capacity is when it doesn't go as planned, and (hopefully just) one head goes down in an attempt to recover the situation through the MCDU. This tends to lead to a loss of situational awareness in my experience. I find I use much less capacity by putting the aircraft where I want it to be by looking outside, or indeed monitoring my mate instead of pushing the wrong buttons!

Again, the weather must be conducive, but at somewhere like LFMN, for example, how often is one IMC at the FAF at 3000' only for the Airfield to appear before reaching MDA of 2000'? As for the other end - What's the point if flying down this (relatively) precise 3 degree approach only to level off before the final descent?

Chesty Morgan

16th May 2016, 09:47

Surely the minima for a visual approach (if you want one) is when you become visual!

RAT 5

16th May 2016, 17:07

It does seem a mountain from a mole hill discussion. These comments relate to a normal IFR airline operation. I do appreciate, and have done many times, approaches into pure visual airfields with perhaps a cloud-break first.
If you are making a visual to a runway with an approach aid why NOT set the minima for that? You would have briefed before TOD and out of sight of the airfield, therefore would have briefed and set up for relevant approach.
If you are making a visual direct to a circling runway why NOT set circling minimum?
If you are making a pure visual why NOT set THR + 500' as a trigger for the stable/GA/continue decision point?

I don't understand guys wanting to overcomplicate a simple scenario. Do guys really re-set bugs during approach? If you are making a short turn visual onto a rwy with an ILS transmitting - for which you have the bugs and aids set up - is anybody going to change anything, or just fly the damn a/c?

Escape Path

17th May 2016, 02:03

I may qualify for the more "simple-minded" kind of guy someone else said before. If you're on a visual, well, fly visual for god's sake. We are flying airplanes with two pilots, one of them is supposed to monitor. If company policy is to be stable at 500' or 1000' AAL for visual (we use 1000), then the PM should be paying attention (even more below said height) the PF doesn't fly the aircraft out of stable approach. No need for minimums callouts or what have you. Even most airplanes will call out 1000 or 500 for you, it takes a special situation (or two special pilots) to miss that. No need to over-complicate things.

If you briefed for X approach and in the process of flying a visual you fly a self-vectored instrument approach (the one you just briefed) I guess it doesn't hurt to set the minimums for that approach. Even though it's absolutely irrelevant and doesn't help your cause as you should be visual (and stable) in most cases by that time, which I think is the criteria needed for a visual approach. It doesn't hurt doing it but I reckon it's as useless as men's nipples

Check Airman

17th May 2016, 04:32

At my company, we set the mins to the approach we're using to back up the visual. One of the reasons, I assume is that if ATC switches us to an instrument approach at the last minute, there's one less thing to do. Everything's already set up.

On a related note, why is it that non-US carriers seem so hesitant to accept visual approaches? If you've planned an ILS to a runway, and ATC offers a visual, it's pretty rare to hear a non-US crew accept the clearance. Just my unscientific observation.

Bobermo

17th May 2016, 09:09

At my previous employer, the largest 737 operator in Europe, you could only accept a visual if you had briefed it and double briefed it, and you had to be lined up with the runway at 4nm out. So in theory, if you hadn't briefed it, you could not accept..

Fortunately, at my current employer were happy to accept a visual and the only requirement is to be stable at 500ft. Of course, once we accept we will keep eachother in the loop about the intentions and course of action.

If the minima were already set for ILS we don't change it. If we planned a visual most guys will put 500ft AGL as a reminder to be stable.

Check Airman

17th May 2016, 09:27

Ah. That explains it then. Wouldn't work out very well here, otherwise we'd spend all day briefing...Not even gonna touch the 4nm final thing!

RAT 5

17th May 2016, 11:20

I was discussing, with a friend at a major EU national carrier, the whole issue of big/small a/c approaches and piloting techniques at their HUGE very noise sensitive hub. Not much has changed since my days there when flying for one of the 'lower down the food chain' local airlines. Visuals are allowed during the day hours; be sure not to overfly built up areas, keep it quiet and establish finals not <1000'. Seems all hunky dory, simple, fun, skilful. Easy to make the decision last minute and just fly the damn a/c onto finals using Mk.1 eyeball. And that's without PAPI's if the ILS GP is transmitting. My friend took great delight in doing just this with a B747 and now with B737. Indeed, it is encouraged with B737 to allow a short turn in ahead of a further out B747 to save time/spacing. The most basic of piloting manoeuvres.
It would seem one major?? airline would ask for a hold to brief such a manoeuvre, set up the FMC for an LNAV/VNAV, then call ready; by which time you have slipped back from No.1 to No.4 behind 3 heavies.
They do, now, fly into said hub. I wonder how it goes on busy days?

Regarding the comment about a visual approach has no minima: airlines tend to have a 500' gate. To rely solely on PM to call it out from memory is a hole in the cheese. They are likely looking more outside than in. Consider how many incidents/accidents have been contributed to by a pilot not calling out/warning the other of a parameter. If there is an automatic method available to make such a call e.g. "minimums" at 500' why not use it. Close the hole. In my spam-can the land/GA decision is usually about flare time; unless it was blindingly obvious a minute earlier. Glide approaches are allowed in the 'busy bees'.

Mikehotel152

17th May 2016, 11:53

At my previous employer, the largest 737 operator in Europe, you could only accept a visual if you had briefed it and double briefed it, and you had to be lined up with the runway at 4nm out. So in theory, if you hadn't briefed it, you could not accept..

As you say, 'in theory'. If they turned off the ILS when you were at 10d on a clear day, would you not continue?

With an ILS or VNAV/LNAV profile briefed, a 'visual' simply becomes a shortened approach with either a self-positioned segment or radar vector to the 3 degree path. The higher minima (if that's what the company require) can be set in a second. In both cases, I expect a 4 mile final would be most people's preference?

RAT 5

17th May 2016, 17:47

In both cases, I expect a 4 mile final would be most people's preference?

Samos, Calvi, Corfu, various others where I've taken a B757 & B767 that was not possible. Could it be that some operators can not accept some routes because their TM's are not pilot trained enough?

Chesty Morgan

17th May 2016, 17:54

SOU, not more than 2 mile final if joining downwind on 20.

Journey Man

17th May 2016, 20:49

SOU, not more than 2 mile final if joining downwind on 20.

From the U.K. AIP for EGHI

Aircraft flying an instrument approach other than ILS, or those aircraft flying a visual approach, should not intercept the appropriate final approach track at a range less than 5 DME SAM, except that aircraft flying a visual approach via the downwind leg should not intercept final approach at less than 2 DME SAM for RWY 20 or 4 DME SAM for RWY 02.

Chesty Morgan

17th May 2016, 21:15

Same thing :E

Bobermo

17th May 2016, 22:24

As you say, 'in theory'. If they turned off the ILS when you were at 10d on a clear day, would you not continue?

With an ILS or VNAV/LNAV profile briefed, a 'visual' simply becomes a shortened approach with either a self-positioned segment or radar vector to the 3 degree path. The higher minima (if that's what the company require) can be set in a second. In both cases, I expect a 4 mile final would be most people's preference?

Yes we would continue. But let's say you're on downwind and atc offers a visual to cut in front of an aircraft at approximately 15 miles out, then if you haven't briefed and double briefed it you could not fly it. I have to say some guys would still accept, but if you f*ck it up and there is an investigation and you didn't brief it, it could have serious consequences..

In regard to the 4 mile final, I usually aim at 3 miles and 1000ft with idle thrust. If high make a wider turn, if low cut the corner to 2.5 mile for example. Spool up and stable at 500ft:)

RAT 5

18th May 2016, 09:50

but if you f*ck it up and there is an investigation and you didn't brief it, it could have serious consequences..

Does that mean if you briefed it and still screwed it up there would be lesser consequences? (tongue in cheek). It does seem odd to the older brigade that the simplest of tasks, e.g. land on a runway that everyone can see from downwind or overhead should be deemed to be so dangerous unless you have briefed what you are going to do. There is no such thing as a standard descending visual circuit because you could start at a differing height and a differing position. The wind could effect your profile; traffic on finals - in sight- will effect your turn in. How can you brief when & what you are going to do in micro steps in advance. The only thing you know is the flap & auto brake setting. All the rest you do by good judgement during the procedure. This gives you no discretion to make a decision when close to the airfield and can assess the local situation. It's too late to act. These guys who set up LNAV/VNAV profiles for visual circuits are not any safer, perhaps less so, if circumstances force you to leave the cosiness of the sucky blanket magenta line.

Capn Bloggs

18th May 2016, 10:34

Rat 5, that'll be enough of that "look out the window and land on the black bit" nonsense. :=:D:ok::ok:

RAT 5

18th May 2016, 12:31

Hi Bloggs,

Damn shame: that nonsense seemed to work for me throughout most of my career when visual. Of course all the poncy stuff had been discussed and set up before TOD, but if mother nature shined favourably upon us lower down, the issue became one of let a/c meet terra firma on the spot of white paint near the beginning of black bit ASAP, but in a relaxed manner.

I was teaching base training to some cadets and asked them to confirm the profile from abeam threshold to turning finals. They came out with all the correct timing and configuration stuff. Great. Now for the real thing. On the first turn onto base leg, after the correct timing, I asked them what they could see on the ground. Confused stare. "Can you see that white roofed factory beneath you?" "Yes." "Can you see that big yellow field on finals?" "Yes." "Does that give you a clue?" "Ah Ha!"

For a light-hearted moment, but mostly for myself, I listened from the jump seat to an extensive brief for an approach. Then, a few minutes after the Descent Cx's had been done, I asked PNF to recall a couple of the more salient points made in the biblical brief. 50% pass mark! The look on the crew's faces was magic.

16024

18th May 2016, 13:49

Rat 5: The voice of reason!
I would say though, in reply to:
Does that mean if you briefed it and still screwed it up there would be lesser consequences?
..I'd hope so!
I know you meant it tongue in cheek, but I'd also hope that your company, like mine had a No Blame policy for missed approaches, and if you had briefed for the possibility of a visual, and it hadn't gone to plan, at least there was a plan. This protects your colleague from the "let's have a go" moment.
Other than that, with you all the way.
Double brief: Why get it all into one concise, pertinent easily understandable discussion that someone will actually listen to, when I can ramble on twice, having "lost" the other guy half an hour ago!

EMIT

19th May 2016, 15:01

Are we talking airline business in this discussion, or General Aviation stuff?

In airline business we are supposed to have briefed and set up the approach prior to start of descent.
Top of Descent in big airplanes is about 130 nm out from destination.
A visual approach means that from the point of initiation of the approach, the intended point of landing is in sight and is expected to remain so until touchdown.
Now there are regions in the world where visibility is pretty good, but having the touchdown point in sight from 130 nm out is rare, stated mildly.
This means that the setup is for minima for the IFR approach that is to be expected.
If, at any later time, closer to the airport, the landing runway is in sight, and ATC is happy with it and the crew is happy with it, a visual completion is possible, then of course, use whatever means available to complete the approach visually, but minimums are no longer applicable.

The concept of PLANNING a visual approach and then setting minima for it just doesn't apply in airline business. You are flying IFR until proven otherwise and that proof can occur only long after you have set up for an IFR approach with its associated minima.

Once you do accept a visual completion, by all means, the RAT5 comments fully apply, the real world is outside your window!

This sort of discussion can also be found around the stable gates at 1.000 ft or 500 ft.
Usually it is 1.000 ft in IMC, or 500 ft in VMC.
Sometimes you hear people about "planning" for the 500 ft gate - NO, it is always the 1.000 ft gate, only if you see the runway from a great distance out, and will keep sight of the runway until touchdown, then you could decide to DELAY stabilization until the 500 ft gate. Here too, the proof that you are in VMC until touchdown can only occur very far into the process of the approach (remember, about 30 minutes from top of descent until touchdown in big aircraft?)

Capn Bloggs

20th May 2016, 04:42

A visual approach means that from the point of initiation of the approach
The "approach" starts at the MSA, not 130nm! Unless instrument approaches are on the ATIS or the STAR terminates with an instrument approach, why would you not do a visual?

We do Visual approaches through the gloop down to 10k quite often.

Being738

20th May 2016, 07:28

even with planned a ILS sometimes if conditions are met visual it is an option.

harrryw

25th May 2016, 13:16

So could I say that adding a line to the aproach briefing for ILS at 120nm like:
If visual at 1000ft and stable make visual aproach." would cover the briefing needs and save any confusion between the PF and PM regarding intentions.

RAT 5

25th May 2016, 20:51

Don't understand that. How did you make an arrival IMC to become visual at 1000'? At 1000' on an instrument approach what are you going to change if you are visual? Do you mean you might disconnect and make a manual landing? Are you suggesting that the procedures on an IMC & visual approach <1000' are somehow different, other than not calling 'minimums'? If the EGPWS calls "+100, or approaching minimums, and minimums" are you not going to respond as per SOP's? Are you going to reach down and reset the MDA bug?
I need some clarity.