Cleared Visual Approach....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not an instrument approach. The main point is that unless the STAR is cancelled, follow the STAR. The STAR is the tracking authorised by ATC. ATC may cancel the STAR if traffic disposition permits.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where else is there a STAR that specifically joins a visual approach, one that is defined differently to AIP (ie, 4 or 3.5 NM final)? Why doesn't the final approach/STAR fix have a waypoint if it is so crucial to be a fly-over? What is the nature of the 20-30 weekly failure-to-comply incidents? Evenly distributed between 01 and 19? What tolerence do you apply to a "4 NM final" before 225'ing?
that was the sound of a can of worms being opened
that was the sound of a can of worms being opened
Grandpa Aerotart
The point many here seem to be missing, or unaware of, is that in many parts of the world ATC will not issue IFR RPT a visual approach. Asia, ME and EU/UK spring to mind, at least as far as high capacity RPT is concerned...and in many parts of the world that is the only type of aviation that exists.
The ability for ATC to issue and IFR RPT aircrew to accept a visual approach in CTA in Australia is an extra bit of flexibility which should be lauded not slated as 'yet another Ozzie difference' to the way the rest of the world 'does it'....with the unwriten assumption that the rest of the world does it better.
That flexibility comes with some responsibility for the crews who avail themselves of this added flexibility...KNOWING what is expected when issued the clearance
This is why many foriegn airlines don't permit their aircrews to do visual approaches and why ATC in Australia are not permitted to offer them to aircrews of foriegn registered aircraft, even if the crew is quite obviously Ozzie...allegedly
The requirements ARE black and white and very detailed...there is just no excuse for not complying.
The ability for ATC to issue and IFR RPT aircrew to accept a visual approach in CTA in Australia is an extra bit of flexibility which should be lauded not slated as 'yet another Ozzie difference' to the way the rest of the world 'does it'....with the unwriten assumption that the rest of the world does it better.
That flexibility comes with some responsibility for the crews who avail themselves of this added flexibility...KNOWING what is expected when issued the clearance
This is why many foriegn airlines don't permit their aircrews to do visual approaches and why ATC in Australia are not permitted to offer them to aircrews of foriegn registered aircraft, even if the crew is quite obviously Ozzie...allegedly
The requirements ARE black and white and very detailed...there is just no excuse for not complying.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brisvegas
Age: 46
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, I am a bit lost here. My 2 cents worth (which will probably be off the mark) is as follows:
-ATC clears you for a particular STAR before TOPD (generally 99.9% of the time)
-On the way down you report 'visual' (i.e requesting a visual approach)
-ATC clears you for a visual approach
You must continue to follow the STAR until within 5nm (day) or circling area/5nm on VASIS/10nm ILS etc (Night) but can descend at your discretion provided you maintain 500' above CTA and above MSA (night)
So essentially, the purpose really is to remove the vertical responsibility from ATC. THe clearance authorised by ATC is the STAR so that becomes the lateral tracking requirement.
Of course, if you request direct to a 5nm final and request a visual approach then that is a different story.
-ATC clears you for a particular STAR before TOPD (generally 99.9% of the time)
-On the way down you report 'visual' (i.e requesting a visual approach)
-ATC clears you for a visual approach
You must continue to follow the STAR until within 5nm (day) or circling area/5nm on VASIS/10nm ILS etc (Night) but can descend at your discretion provided you maintain 500' above CTA and above MSA (night)
So essentially, the purpose really is to remove the vertical responsibility from ATC. THe clearance authorised by ATC is the STAR so that becomes the lateral tracking requirement.
Of course, if you request direct to a 5nm final and request a visual approach then that is a different story.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
The point many here seem to be missing, or unaware of, is that in many parts of the world ATC will not issue IFR RPT a visual approach. Asia, ME and EU/UK spring to mind, at least as far as high capacity RPT is concerned
I've asked for and got visuals into LGW, MAN, EDI, Malaga, BCN, Athens, plus quite a few more that I cant think of just now (brain fade as usual
)As for other parts, well my experience is a little more limited to Instrument procedures...(my company has a published list of approved visual airports)
Personally I cant see the point or the flexibility, it is IMHO an instrument approach in all but name...with a small visual component. No doubt it works, and works well, but given the tracking restrictions with speed and altitude constraints on the plate ****su has posted.....its certainly more restrictive than any visual clearence I've seen elsewhere
I guess its an Ozzie perspective on what works
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck - Agreed, I like the way you think!
Tempo - Agreed
Pakeha-Boy - I always had it squared away bro.
Haughtney - Actually the Visual STARS do save a few track miles compared to flying the instrument approach, so they do provide flexibility in that regard.
Duff Man - if I didn't know you better I would say you are stirring the possum!
Tempo - Agreed
Pakeha-Boy - I always had it squared away bro.
Haughtney - Actually the Visual STARS do save a few track miles compared to flying the instrument approach, so they do provide flexibility in that regard.
Duff Man - if I didn't know you better I would say you are stirring the possum!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: YBBN
Age: 72
Posts: 14
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.
This whole thread is rather interesting.
There are 3 ways to terminate a STAR:
At the IAF for an INstrument approach
Radar vectors OR
a visual termination.
The first two are obvious.
The visual termination has a few ways of ending (happily or otherwise)
If the VSA track is charted (as in the River Track at Brisbane) then follow it and eventually the wheels should touch about 1000FT in from the threshold RW01.
If the VSA is not charted then ATC should give you tracking instructions from the termination point of the STAR to a point where you can land.
Simple no? yes? especially if ATC can give it and pilots can fly it.
The STAR is a lateral clearance with vertical being given as available by ATC until the magic words, cleared VSA or cleared for the approach.
More tea vicar?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about mountain and mole hills!
In Aus, not sure about the rest of the world there are stars that involve either a visual segment or and instrument procedure.
On a STAR with an instrument procedure, say an ILS, to complete the StAR you can either be cleared for the ILS or if you prefer and make your preference known, by reporting visual, cleared VSA.
At civilized airports where track miles can be reduced by producing a STAR with a visual procedure at the end of the STAR, such as Brisbane, Cairns, Perth and so they have these stars.
What instruction would you expect ATC to give you to remove any altitude limitations whilst carrying out either of these type of StARs.
I suggest either cleared for the instrument approach if the STAR terminates with an instrument approach OR ( as I flew in to Perth yesterday and the Gosnal 3 I think was our STAR) on the Gosnal example which terminates with a visual procedure we were cleared for a visual approach.
.
In Aus, not sure about the rest of the world there are stars that involve either a visual segment or and instrument procedure.
On a STAR with an instrument procedure, say an ILS, to complete the StAR you can either be cleared for the ILS or if you prefer and make your preference known, by reporting visual, cleared VSA.
At civilized airports where track miles can be reduced by producing a STAR with a visual procedure at the end of the STAR, such as Brisbane, Cairns, Perth and so they have these stars.
What instruction would you expect ATC to give you to remove any altitude limitations whilst carrying out either of these type of StARs.
I suggest either cleared for the instrument approach if the STAR terminates with an instrument approach OR ( as I flew in to Perth yesterday and the Gosnal 3 I think was our STAR) on the Gosnal example which terminates with a visual procedure we were cleared for a visual approach.
.
Last edited by Skynews; 29th Aug 2010 at 23:17.
To make matters worse, the military controllers in Darwin expect you to track as required when cleared for a visual approach but they don't say so, they just act confused when you don't. (At least they did a couple for years ago, I haven't flown in there for a while.)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, Australia reinvents the aviation wheel
They are only 1500nm away but flying IFR RPT over here you might as well be on another planet.
