I’m an Aussie. The fact I pointed out a particular visual maneuver in the US is just the first one that came to mind.

Simply pointing out that isn’t a visual approach exactly that, visual?

For clarification I’m not nitpicking the incident that was originally posted if that’s the context you took, I didn't read the report. I’m just responding to John citizens post.

Havik, the expressway visual into LGA, just like the river visual into Regan and the Canasty into JFK are instrument approaches with a visual tracking segment, they aren’t unique to the US, but typically how they are flown differs a lot from operator to operator. In the case of incident mentioned, based on what the air circus astronauts go into print about....a visual approach can be commenced at the end of a STAR...seems counterintuitive to me...but it ain’t Cessna flying.

Not for me it's not. Sure, there's no instrument approach BS but it is still very much instrument-guided, especially if the FMS plan now doesn't match the shortened track, along the lines of A-Squared's "Seems like if you had a DME tuned to a station on the airfield and you were looking at the distance and thinking about whether you were at a reasonable altitude for the distance".

Pilots can no longer think in 3D.

That ALT SEL policy for visual approaches needs to change too.

I know it’s not unique it’s the first one that came to mind as it’s the last visual I did.

I guess that’s your opinion, personally I don’t find it any different to flying a cessna or a helicopter for that matter, maybe I’m doing it wrong. You make a good point, procedures/requirements vary from operator to operator.

Right, and again (you seem to have some difficulty grasping this) their woes began when they accepted the visual, approximately 10 nm out, within about 30 seconds of that point in time they were A: below normal profile, B: configured with gear down and at least the first increment of flaps, and C: Descending huckety-buck toward the floor of the CTA. So everything you typed about speed limits, the need to configure, the need to remain on profile, the difficulty of simultaneously descending and slowing, the challenge of configuring the airplane, structural speed limits, company speed limits, ATC speed limits, the difficulty of having to maintain a minimum thrust setting on descent, the need to be on profile at 1000 ft, the requirement to land in the touchdown zone; All of that has exactly zero relevance to the incident under discussion. This wasn't a case of being to high and too fast and being unable to get configured and on profile. It's actually the opposite problem, being far too low for where they were relative to the airport, and not suspecting it.

My assumption is that at the point they accepted the visual, that they had the airport in sight. According to the ATSB report they reported that the runway was in sight. Is that not true? If it *is* true, why did they lose SA due to being absorbed in programming the FMS to navigate them to a runway they could see? If it is *not* true, why did they say it was? Seems like if they *had* been looking at the runway, it would have occurred to someone that, hey, that runway is a long way away and it doesn't really *look* like we're high on profile, why are we rocketing downward at almost double our normal descent rate? Certainly if someone had been keeping an eye on the DME, they might have twigged that descending through 2600 ft above the airport, at -1400 ft/min. was maybe a little below profile for being 10 miles from the runway. Instead, they were diving to catch a descent-path indicator which was commanding them to be at 1800 ft above the airport, 9-10 nm away because it was programmed for something other than what they were doing.

I am with John Citizen on this one, a visual approach in a largish jet is never as simple as looking out the window and flying it like a cessna. If only it was.

In my experience, visual approaches are more often mismanaged than instrument approaches by young guns and crusty old salts alike.

I have no data at all but i suspect more go arounds occur following screwed up visuals than ILSssss.

Visual approach on jet is more challenging than on a Cessna for the simple reason we have very little margin for maneuvers and errors due to QAR... If only we could bank 60 degrees if required, sideslip if too high, be stabilized at 200 feet and land 1500 meters after the runway threshold like on a little piston aircraft doing bush style flying it would be very easy also! Lol. Saying that, visual approach on Airbus is pretty straight forward,relax and fun with A/Thr and the bird even with the damn QAR.
Always made me feel sorry for the guys flying for Emirates and denying visual approach for an ILS in Lusaka in a perfect cavok day. xD

Just look at the other end of the runway for a routinely flown visual joining very close in with a Vert offset. (LizziV)

It's easy, because you're prepared, set up for it and you've thought about it.

Accepting visuals involving track shortening when already close in is a different kettle of fish. A simple setup in the fmgc is my preference for a basic distance to go and DME is king but an approach starts before the IAF, same for a visual - you've gotta get yourself into the right spot first

Pineteam Not all of us are cut from the scared of our own shadow cloth...besides the “recommended” consideration into Lusaka these days is the RNAV cos the localiser is rubbish :8:E
Did a visual last time I was there about 3 months ago :ok:

Any one that flys a Cessna like that would end up with tea and biscuits with the chief pilot without tea and biscuits. This thread reminds me of another - children of the magenta line.

You posted that from your iphone, didn't you?

Folks how about we have a read of the incident before we comment.

If people had read what happened they would realise they were stuffed around by ATC with multiple changes then got distracted by the changes.

Then you throw in all the other issues such as remaining in controlled airspace and company speed restrictions all whilst doing over 5 miles a minute makes it very different to flying a 152. To even suggest that shows a lack of understanding of the problems at hand.
An easy solution is to have visual STARS that deliver you in nice and close but so some reason in Australia we can't do that.

I think a time is coming in Australia when all these ' track via STAR cross fix at time X/250 knots followed by speed up /slow down/ max speed/ cancel speed restrictions cancel STAR track direct to final call the tower' is just going to be met with 'negative'.

Haha! Well, not in the small charters companies in some African countries. You are free to fly the way you want. That was the beauty of bush flying. Obviously, these kind of extreme maneuvers would be done when operating with no passagers on board and only on occasional times when we were pushing it. My point is you don’t need to worry how fast, or how much you bank, if you have flaps or not etc... Just land on the runway and done.
On the A320 our Sop states to be stabilized by 1000 feet AAL, max VAPP + 20 when passing 1000 feet AAL, max 7 degres of bank, and so much more restrictions you have to think about making it quite a challenge.
Remove that and it’s pretty much as easy as flying a Cessna. Even easier, as you are 2 in the cockpit. Quite nice when ATC is high work load. = )

Ahhh. The dreaded Visual Approach.

We have come a long way! :(

Or more correctly known as regulatory capture...

I don't know about that. The window is for spotting traffic/ wx and flying to a visual aiming point on final.

Hitting 10 nm to run at 3000-3300 agl F2 (F5) at 160 kt / Ref +40 is going to work every time. Unless you are in a position you can join downwind for that perfect cct we all get assessed on in the sim....

Is that a technical limitation only for an A320? if so what is the min N1 for descent? Certainly no N1 descent limitation in a 737 with CFM 56's.

Agree. I shake my head here when I hear an international getting held up on the CTA steps. About time CASA took account of the new-generation "gliders" and moved the steps out. And don't make them Class E!

Wow , we sure know how to make a visual approach complicated. On the Airbus just get rid of the ILS in the FMGS and select the visual approach. You now have the centre line plus a 5 mile fix and surprise surprise a green dot commonly called the "yo-yo" giving a visual 3 degree slope to touch down, provided the to wpt is either the 5 nm fix or the threshold. How hard can we make it? by trying to get too fancy with the FMGS! Remember the KISS principle.

"On the Airbus just get rid of the ILS in the FMGS and select the visual approach. You now have the centre line plus a 5 mile fix and surprise surprise a green dot commonly called the "yo-yo" giving a visual 3 degree slope to touch down, provided the to wpt is either the 5 nm fix or the threshold."

What you just described there is kinda like a visual approach but using lots of technology such as an FMC, an ND and a computer generated glideslope.

I will give any one here 100 bucks to come tearing into a field for a 90 degree base leg cleared for a visual approach from 30 miles out in a 330 with the ND turned down, the DME turned off and the "yo yo" (never heard it called that before???) taken away by magic without busting a CTA step, sink rate rules, stable criteria AND without dragging it in too much by just using the window.

Like in a cessna!