Cleared Visual Approach....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..exackery!!!
fly a couple, they are designed for idiots....you being a smarty type bloke will have it figured out in no time'
****s...by the way ,the correct terminology is ...."you are cleared to decend via the ABC star"
fly a couple, they are designed for idiots....you being a smarty type bloke will have it figured out in no time'
****s...by the way ,the correct terminology is ...."you are cleared to decend via the ABC star"
Last edited by pakeha-boy; 7th Oct 2006 at 07:33.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the correct terminology is ...."you are cleared to decend via the ABC star"
<sighs even louder>
Glad we are not confusing this issue in any way now. As I recall from your posts on packing heat in the cockpits of America, you generally fly in the land of the free.
My question was in the DG forum - this refers to the land of the.... <insert parochial phrase>.
We don't use that nice phrase that you have so eloquently "quoted" above.
<sighs once again for good luck>
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 7th Oct 2006 at 07:50.
Grandpa Aerotart
****su you're right...I only used night because that was the example du jour.
The requirements for an IFR aircraft to accept and fly a visual approach are some of the most black and white in aviation...in fact they make a nice change...there is just no excuse for ad-libbing.
If the pilot thinks he can save 30 seconds by not complying with the star it is equally easy...ask for a vector direct 5 mile finals.
Either way a clearance to make visual approach while flying a star does not mean 'manouver as required' it simply removes the need for ATC to continue 'progressively clearing' the aircraft. The PIC can then track via the star and descend as required (wihin the night/day constraints) until he is on finals where he will be turned over to tower for a landing clearance.
Simple?
My recomendation stands...file reports...sitting behind your console muttering vague epithets about the pilots parentage achieve nothing. If you like they can be 'depersonalised'...just a a/c type and date. It won't be long before you see an improvement once the company C&Ting staff are made aware.
The requirements for an IFR aircraft to accept and fly a visual approach are some of the most black and white in aviation...in fact they make a nice change...there is just no excuse for ad-libbing.
If the pilot thinks he can save 30 seconds by not complying with the star it is equally easy...ask for a vector direct 5 mile finals.
Either way a clearance to make visual approach while flying a star does not mean 'manouver as required' it simply removes the need for ATC to continue 'progressively clearing' the aircraft. The PIC can then track via the star and descend as required (wihin the night/day constraints) until he is on finals where he will be turned over to tower for a landing clearance.
Simple?
My recomendation stands...file reports...sitting behind your console muttering vague epithets about the pilots parentage achieve nothing. If you like they can be 'depersonalised'...just a a/c type and date. It won't be long before you see an improvement once the company C&Ting staff are made aware.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Chuck - we probably log 20-30 failures to comply each week just in our small bit of airspace.
I still believe talking personally with the pilot after landing or some such does more for the education process.
[It's actually the reason I started the thread.]
Some of the Management types seem to disagree.
[But I guess thats why I ain't a manager.]
I still believe talking personally with the pilot after landing or some such does more for the education process.
[It's actually the reason I started the thread.]
Some of the Management types seem to disagree.
[But I guess thats why I ain't a manager.]
Grandpa Aerotart
[It's actually the reason I started the thread.]
If you don't get the support you need from the C&Ting system the answer is equally simple...stop allowing that operator's pilots to fly visual approaches.
Sooner rather than later you'll be contacted by someone up the food chain asking why.."because they are not capable of doing them"
Thanks Chuck - we probably log 20-30 failures to comply each week just in our small bit of airspace.
I still believe talking personally with the pilot after landing or some such does more for the education process.
[It's actually the reason I started the thread.]
Some of the Management types seem to disagree.
[But I guess thats why I ain't a manager.]
I still believe talking personally with the pilot after landing or some such does more for the education process.
[It's actually the reason I started the thread.]
Some of the Management types seem to disagree.
[But I guess thats why I ain't a manager.]
I agree with CC, the incident system will solve it much quicker. The majors receive ESIRs on their aircraft's operations very quickly and ain't going to sit around twiddling their thumbs after the first couple come in.
I'm surprised your supervisors haven't had the gumption to submit the ESIRs (if you've told them about it).
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone please explain to me why you have this requirement to track via the STAR on a visual approach (have I understood correctly?). Possible reason would be traffic density and R/T congestion, but we don't seem to have a problem at Wellington for example.
I'm also interested in how it's done in other countries if anyone could fill me in.
It also really annoys me when ATC are intent on informing you of something you are required to already know.
I'm also interested in how it's done in other countries if anyone could fill me in.
It also really annoys me when ATC are intent on informing you of something you are required to already know.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Cloud ya bugger..you stole my question
I can understand having to follow the STAR to the initial fix, then through the intermediate section, but why (in Daylight VMC, not night as previously discussed) the requirement;
When for example you are visual with the field/runway/terrain?
Are you guys suggesting that ATC wont authorize a daytime visual unless you are inside 5 miles? again bearing in mind that my understanding is that a VFR flight needs 5K horizontal vis (or is that 8k's...which is 5 miles)
If so they are costing airlines tens of thousands of dollars in wasted fuel
Can someone clarify this?
I can understand having to follow the STAR to the initial fix, then through the intermediate section, but why (in Daylight VMC, not night as previously discussed) the requirement;
a) maintain track/heading on route authorised by ATC until:
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome;
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome;
Are you guys suggesting that ATC wont authorize a daytime visual unless you are inside 5 miles? again bearing in mind that my understanding is that a VFR flight needs 5K horizontal vis (or is that 8k's...which is 5 miles)
If so they are costing airlines tens of thousands of dollars in wasted fuel
Can someone clarify this?
My understanding was that a STAR was a lateral clearance, whereas initially cleared visual approach removes any vertical restrictions. Therefore I would imagine that you would need the STAR cancelled and either radar vectors to a say, 5nm final, or resume on navigation track direct to...
I am still on learning this stuff and don't fly them, but my view from the cheap seats. I'm sure there is someone more learned who can shoot holes in that theory.
I am still on learning this stuff and don't fly them, but my view from the cheap seats. I'm sure there is someone more learned who can shoot holes in that theory.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason I ask is that in NZ, a visual approach clearance means you are unrestricted in both tracking and descent unless specifically stated.
At busy airports where you have been previously cleared for a STAR, you may be told the visual is not yet available or 'cleared visual approach tracking via ......... maintain ....... ft'. Seems to work.
At busy airports where you have been previously cleared for a STAR, you may be told the visual is not yet available or 'cleared visual approach tracking via ......... maintain ....... ft'. Seems to work.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The reason I ask is that in NZ, a visual approach clearance means you are unrestricted in both tracking and descent unless specifically stated.
At busy airports where you have been previously cleared for a STAR, you may be told the visual is not yet available or 'cleared visual approach tracking via ......... maintain ....... ft'. Seems to work.
At busy airports where you have been previously cleared for a STAR, you may be told the visual is not yet available or 'cleared visual approach tracking via ......... maintain ....... ft'. Seems to work.
11.5.4 Tracking requirements..as per CC's post So the STAR would be classified as " the route progressively authorised by ATC"
So this is a bit cute, isn't it? ( I am studying for CIR so I need to understand if I have this right) IF you give me a STAR then I have a clearance to follow that arrival procedure as published. A visual approach should be a separate procedure. However, the way it is written I am still under active guidance from ATC as to direction whilst I am obliged to maintain visual conditions on descent until established on the cleared approach or circuit position.
If I remember right, the old system (Pre-STAR,1978) was once you were cleared visual approch you were authorised to make a "visual approach" by the most direct route to within 5nm of the field, descending as required to remain within CTA till circuit entry height. Only thought this was available traffic permitting.
So this is a bit cute, isn't it? ( I am studying for CIR so I need to understand if I have this right) IF you give me a STAR then I have a clearance to follow that arrival procedure as published. A visual approach should be a separate procedure. However, the way it is written I am still under active guidance from ATC as to direction whilst I am obliged to maintain visual conditions on descent until established on the cleared approach or circuit position.
If I remember right, the old system (Pre-STAR,1978) was once you were cleared visual approch you were authorised to make a "visual approach" by the most direct route to within 5nm of the field, descending as required to remain within CTA till circuit entry height. Only thought this was available traffic permitting.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Might I suggest some of you read back through the thread before posting the same questions over again?)
Thats exactly why STARS are promulgated - see AIP:
12.1.2 STARs satisfy the requirements of:
a. noise abatement procedure tracks;
b. airspace segregation for ATC purposes;
c. maximum traffic handling capacity; and
d. reduction in pilot/controller workload and air/ground communication
requirements.
Tracking Requirments:
Example:
para b) above refers to the instructions from KOUPA and LISSA below. That is your instruction. It does not say track as you like. The Visual Approach is the descent.
Can someone please explain to me why you have this requirement to track via the STAR on a visual approach (have I understood correctly?). Possible reason would be traffic density and R/T congestion, but we don't seem to have a problem at Wellington for example.
12.1.2 STARs satisfy the requirements of:
a. noise abatement procedure tracks;
b. airspace segregation for ATC purposes;
c. maximum traffic handling capacity; and
d. reduction in pilot/controller workload and air/ground communication
requirements.
Tracking Requirments:
Tracking requirements (visual app): ATC AU-705 (1.7.5.4) Jepp reference.
Visual approach in CTA
a) maintain track/heading on route authorised by ATC until:
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome; or
(2) by night.
- IFR flight, within the prescribed circling area.
- VFR flight, within 3NM of aerodrome and aerodrome in sight.
b) From this position the circuit must be joined as directed by ATC for
approach to nominated R/W (The STAR does this).
Visual approach in CTA
a) maintain track/heading on route authorised by ATC until:
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome; or
(2) by night.
- IFR flight, within the prescribed circling area.
- VFR flight, within 3NM of aerodrome and aerodrome in sight.
b) From this position the circuit must be joined as directed by ATC for
approach to nominated R/W (The STAR does this).
para b) above refers to the instructions from KOUPA and LISSA below. That is your instruction. It does not say track as you like. The Visual Approach is the descent.
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 8th Oct 2006 at 12:47.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just asking for clarification because it seems like such a crazy way of doing things. What you are in effect doing is tracking via the STAR, with own terrain clearance visually, it's not really a visual approach (by the rest of the worlds standards). When I'm cleared for a visual approach, I head straight for the threshold unless told otherwise.
Once again, Australia reinvents the aviation wheel.
Once again, Australia reinvents the aviation wheel.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
****su, reading the rules that you have posted beggs a question in my mind, why bother calling it a visual approach?
The pilot has no discretion to self position, no discretion to deviate (until inside the magic 5 miles), and seemingly no flexibilty built into the implementation (if I'm understanding your explaination correctly) which is the general point of a visual approach.
To be honest this is all a bit of an eye opener, I had no idea that flying IFR air transport in Oz was so restrictive. Whats the point of it all? everywhere else I've flown if your are visual with the field and terrain (whether thats at 5 or 15 miles in daylight) and can be reasonably assured of maintaining it, you can ask for and get a visual approach (if traffic permits
) Is airspace in Oz that congested?
The pilot has no discretion to self position, no discretion to deviate (until inside the magic 5 miles), and seemingly no flexibilty built into the implementation (if I'm understanding your explaination correctly) which is the general point of a visual approach.
To be honest this is all a bit of an eye opener, I had no idea that flying IFR air transport in Oz was so restrictive. Whats the point of it all? everywhere else I've flown if your are visual with the field and terrain (whether thats at 5 or 15 miles in daylight) and can be reasonably assured of maintaining it, you can ask for and get a visual approach (if traffic permits
) Is airspace in Oz that congested?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haughtney - I can't honestly say I know why, but I am yet to hear someone with authority say I have completely got this wrong.
As far as manouevring as you like, I can not imagine that at any reasonably busy airport you are going to be too far from established on final at 5nm anyway.
I can assure you however that carte blanche manouevring at 5nm from a base position at the airports I am familiar with, can (and does) lead to a technical breakdown of separation standards with either departure paths or missed approach / final approach of converging runways - so that is one answer for you as to why I guess.
Frankly I am not arguing as to whether it is a good idea or not - just trying to make sure we are all dancing to the same tune.
As far as manouevring as you like, I can not imagine that at any reasonably busy airport you are going to be too far from established on final at 5nm anyway.
I can assure you however that carte blanche manouevring at 5nm from a base position at the airports I am familiar with, can (and does) lead to a technical breakdown of separation standards with either departure paths or missed approach / final approach of converging runways - so that is one answer for you as to why I guess.
Frankly I am not arguing as to whether it is a good idea or not - just trying to make sure we are all dancing to the same tune.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... hey ****s, .... you should know by now these things are 'grey' for a reason! 
.. this sort of stuff did my head in years ago! ... cuckoo cuckoo 
... blue pills please nurse 
.
.. besides, as Chuck mentioned .... until grey becomes crystal .. there is always the vitriolic statements regarding parentage
.. works for me!
.. this sort of stuff did my head in years ago! ... cuckoo cuckoo ... blue pills please nurse .
.. besides, as Chuck mentioned .... until grey becomes crystal .. there is always the vitriolic statements regarding parentage
.. works for me!