VFR approach versus visual?

[SkidSolo]

Just looking for a bit of advice here from UK based controllers.
Inbound IFR in Class G then become visual 10 miles out. Is there any advantage/help for the pilot or ATC to declare visual or request a "VFR approach"? I'm a little unclear. If "visual" and cleared visual approach the go-around is standard but VFR approach it can be a circuit?

In all my years of IFR or VFR I've just declared visual and cleared visual approach.
Cheers,
SS

[Rwy1234]

I think VFR approach could be amiguous here. Unless you “cancel IFR” and get some form of acknowledgment such as “IFR plan cancelled at time xxxx” then you’re treated as IFR still but doing a ‘visual approach’.

Whether its any advantage to us or not depends on where you are and what else we’ve got going on.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

In the UK there is no such thing as a "VFR Approach" that I am aware of.

[chevvron]

In my short time at Sumburgh, long before the radar was installed, it was pretty much SOP for the IFR inbounds to report 'airfield in sight' and we would clear them for a visual approach whilst they were still on an IFR flight plan.

[tescoapp]

There is a huge difference between a IFR visual approach and a cancelled IFR VFR approach especially in class G.

When it really comes into its own is procedural airports. By cancelling it lets the controller release what ever IFR traffic they want. If you don't cancel they have to wait until they have visual contact with the other aircraft.

For things to work slickly both ATC and the pilots have to know each others rules.

A visual approach is an IFR approach normal rules and missed approach. VFR approach is a different beast from a separation POV and missed approach. Radar environment is not really that beneficial but procedural it makes a huge difference.