Visual Approach

[colofly72]

Hi gents, I will like a clarification if possible,

During foreign air carrier operation in the US, while approaching the airport you are asked if you have the airfield in sight, if you say yes, you'll get clear for a visual, my understanding is if a go around is to be performed will be the procedure for a visual approach. Even if we planned for an ILS, or we use the glide slope and loc to continue the approach, once clear by the ATC for a visual, the minimums and missed approach must change. My doubt is where can I find that on the FAA regs and correct me if I am wrong.

Cheers

[CallmeJB]

US FAA Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM)


5-4-23:



e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore
has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance.


Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.

[galaxy flyer]

Regardless of any cockpit ILS selections or following the ILS, once cleared for a visual, the visual rules apply--no missed approach procedure. ATC likes using the visual because it allows them to tighten up the spacing.

GF

[TopBunk]

GF

Surely the offer of/acceptance of a visual approach fundamentally means that the pilot controls the separation on the approach thus absolving the controller of the responsibility for separation.

It may be that the pilot generates a greater separation than the controller could theoretically achieve.

Now with TCAS etc, it may well be that the pilot targets a 3.5nm comfort separation rather than a 2.5 or 3nm minimum separation - this would slow down landing rates rather than make them quicker, no?

I can see that with local operators happy to wing it with their colleagues at airports with less heavy traffic/single runway airports that it might increase landing rates and likewise at airports where parallel runways are available, where tighter formations are used.

Overall though, I don't think you can state that landing rates will always increase with visuals.

I am now retired, but have operated into many US airports, including some of the busier ones (SFO, LAX, JFK, ORD, MIA etc) so believe I can comment with some knowledge.

Indeed, I was one of those 'furriners' happy to accept visuals into the above, and have accepted a visual onto SFO 28R in a 747-400 with an instruction to 'not overtake' a 757 onto 28L. With a final approach speed of 150kts vs his ~120kts it was very difficult! We landed at the same time at whatever the runway separation is (not much)!

Made me think twice before accepting the visual approach at SFO again (I did occasionally!)

As I said, I think it is more about the controller passing responsibility to the pilot.

With regards the missed approach, then yes, it was the visual missed approach procedure that applied - usually climb straight ahead on runway heading to 2000ft contacting ATC for instructions ASAP.

[jimmyg]

https://www.facebook.com/1600021113597594/videos/1770111276588576/

Same request from ATC to not overtake but can be difficult, but posses no problem, been done numerous times.

Good controllers will tell you missed approach which is usually straight out XXXXft or you can query.