EK visual approach
 

What's the deal with so many people being reluctant to accept a visual approach ?

If you have to ask that then you are clearly new. Time will educate you. :ok:

EK visual approach
 

Nice to see a helpful response...

Ya, it's just one of those things that dont' seem to work too well into the standard SOP's at EK. Again, if you're new at EK, time will give you the answer to this. It's just not... well, it just doesn't fit well into the way they want us to fly their jets.

K

For the benefit of someone who doesn't fly for EK, why doesn't a visual approach fit in with your SOP?:uhoh:

I'm curious too.

Both the LCC's in the UAE frequently request (and get) visual or atleast self-positioning for a 6nm final at most airports around on their networks.

Obviously saves time and fuel.... so traffic permitting, is there any reason why it's discouraged at EK?

Because too many EK jockeys cøck-up visuals ...... especially those who set-up the rules.

Now the eternal question: What came first, the hen or the egg?

Because we are too frightened we will get fired if we try and fly an aeroplane.

Seems like many are confusing "Visual Approach" with low level, sharp turning hand flying approaches.

You can still fly the ILS with A/P down to your minimum disconnect height on a Visual Approach. Accepting a VA only means that ATC can let go of you from a vectoring and separation point of view. You intercept the localizer at your comfort distance and from there in it's a normal ILS approach.

Bravo varmint, totally agree with you:D:D:D:}

It's perfectly acceptable in EK to fly a visual, as long as it complies with what's written down in terms of safety and preference.
The trouble ALWAYS starts when the guy sitting next to you considers it safer to land with 10kts of tailwind on an ILS, rather than a radar vector to a visual, aka 16/34 in SYD where my "commander" thought it more prudent to ask for the ILS on 34 with 12 kts up the chuff, whilst the landing runway was 16 with vectors to a 5 mile final :ugh:
Long and the short of it, my colleague "allowed" me to fly the approach only after ATC advised of a 40 minute delay in getting the other end.
There are some guys here that attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility for decision making as they lack the intelligence to be able to justify their thought process.

The first sentence of Varmint is spot on.

K

After this month's news, the real question is why would one want to?

What can't put a line into visual runway then build a fix at like 5 miles with a 1500 altitude restriction on it .Or better yet with all that testing they do to get the job how about a little 3 to 1 mental math.LOL:8:8

Here are the definitions from the FAA:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...c/atc0704.html
7-4-1. VISUAL APPROACH
A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an instrument approach procedure. Also, there is no missed approach segment. An aircraft unable to complete a visual approach must be handled as any go-around and appropriate separation must be provided.


And from the ICAO/JAR-OPS:
SKYbrary - Visual Approach
A visual approach is an approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain. (JAR-OPS 1.435 (a) (8))


A visual approach IS NOT an instrument approach...
A visual approach is with visual reference to the terrain...
A visual approach doesn't need any radio aids...

It doesn't say in the OM-A we can not fly it manually... but the EK reading of a visual approach is only a Visual Pattern, flown with the automatics, or position visually to an instrument approach with the automatics...
It is written nowhere, but it is "EK policy"...

Now, by experience, I choose an ILS with -12kts rather than a visual approach to the opposite runway just to avoid being called at the office by certain nuts who have their own reading of the OM-A and with certain definitions (eg: visual app def.).

Why would you get called into the office? Just wondering the reason why...

Can I suggest that those in EK carefully read the OM-A section regarding approach type selection. Particular mention is made of flying ILS approaches with tailwinds as opposed to a more suitable approach to the opposite end.

Radar vectors to a visual approach are considered an instrument approach to the minimum radar vectoring altitude.

The whole section as far as I am concerned is written to allow pilots to use their common sense!

If people are refusing to accept radar vectors to a visual approach on a CAVOK day with no other significant threats , then I think that says more about the confidence in their own ability rather than compliance with the OM -A.

SANDBLASTER - right on! I second your post.

Well, I do agree on the basic...
But discuss that with the management (DCP and tech pilots) about what is the Emirates definition of a visual approach and how we are allowed to fly one... you will be as surprised as I was...
Be my guest!

Well, you're effectively doing a 'Visual Approach' every time you proceed below your 'Visual Descent Point' (VDP).

It pays to remember that when you are doing a 'Visual Approach' you are, in fact, still operating in accordance with 'Instrument Flight Rules' (IFR). I.e. You can request a 'Visual Approach' from your ATC Controller and, if it's granted, you can continue towards the runway 'visually' (subject to certain provisos) and during which process you are responsible for your terrain separation, whilst the ATC Controller remains responsible for your 'traffic' separation. Your local Regulator will almost certainly have limitations in place wrt to the visibility requirements required for conducting a 'Visual Approach'. Your airline might also have additional limitations. And the country and / or airfield where any 'Visual Approaches' are being conducted might also have specific restrictions / limitations.

That said, please be in no doubt that a 'Visual Approach' is not the same as a 'Circling Approach'; and furthermore - wrt 'Circling Approaches' - do not confuse the requirements & limitations as defined by PANS-OPS vs TERPS (and there are substantial differences, and safety implications between the two) !

And, fwiw, here's your's truly doing a Right Hand 'Visual' to Kabul R11 (best viewed in HD) and for which there is no published approach, or even PAPI's and a 'square pattern' it most definitely is not (you basically look out the window and do your best to judge the RoD and the turns... hence the frequent rolling)... so is that 'Visual' enough ? ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HWGQ7Y2n8