Visual Approach
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does MATs say.
Can someone with access post the relevant Visual Approach section here please.
Can someone with access post the relevant Visual Approach section here please.
ATS surveillance service -
VSA at night
At night, you may assign an IFR aircraft receiving an ATS
surveillance service, other than a Super or Heavy jet aircraft as
detailed in Clause 11-10-1320, a visual approach at any distance from
an aerodrome if:
a. the aircraft has been assigned the MVA; and
b. the aircraft is given heading or tracking instructions to intercept
final or to position the aircraft within the circling area of the
aerodrome.
11-10-1350
- Examples of phraseology Use the following phraseology to assign the visual approach:
11-10-1360
- Circling area ATC: "WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA, CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH"
11-10-1370
- VASIS/Glidepath ATC: "WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE T-VASIS (or PAPI) (or
GLIDEPATH) CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH"
Well, that MATS quote puts paid to this:
Visual approach from 8000ft indeed. Still, it is (RAAF) Darwin...
ME: Darwin approach, good evening, XYZ, on descent to FL140, received ALPHA, 3 POB.
APPR: XYZ, Darwin approach, good evening, descend to A100, QNH 1012, landing runway 29.
A short time later:
APPR: XYZ, descend to A080
A short time later:
ME: XYZ, visual
APPR: XYZ, cleared visual approach runway 29, contact tower 133.1 at 5 miles, good night.
Notice how short and sweet that all was. It can be even shorter than that. Sometimes, on the initial call to Approach, if I report "visual", the controller clears me for the visual approach as soon as I hit 30 DME!
APPR: XYZ, Darwin approach, good evening, descend to A100, QNH 1012, landing runway 29.
A short time later:
APPR: XYZ, descend to A080
A short time later:
ME: XYZ, visual
APPR: XYZ, cleared visual approach runway 29, contact tower 133.1 at 5 miles, good night.
Notice how short and sweet that all was. It can be even shorter than that. Sometimes, on the initial call to Approach, if I report "visual", the controller clears me for the visual approach as soon as I hit 30 DME!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOS Part 172—Air Traffic Services has this to say:
12.2.4.5 When being vectored at night, an IFR aircraft, other than a HEAVY jet
aircraft as described at paragraph 12.2.4.3, may be assigned a visual
approach at any distance from an aerodrome, if:
(a) the aircraft has been assigned the minimum vector altitude; and
(b) the aircraft has been given heading instructions to intercept final or to
position the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome; and
(c) the following phraseology is used to assign the visual approach:
(i) “WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE VASIS/GLIDEPATH CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”; or
(ii) “WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”.
They have simply deleted the 'radar' in radar vectoring rather than change it to ATC SS. Other references to radar have been changed to SS.
12.2.4.5 When being vectored at night, an IFR aircraft, other than a HEAVY jet
aircraft as described at paragraph 12.2.4.3, may be assigned a visual
approach at any distance from an aerodrome, if:
(a) the aircraft has been assigned the minimum vector altitude; and
(b) the aircraft has been given heading instructions to intercept final or to
position the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome; and
(c) the following phraseology is used to assign the visual approach:
(i) “WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE VASIS/GLIDEPATH CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”; or
(ii) “WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”.
They have simply deleted the 'radar' in radar vectoring rather than change it to ATC SS. Other references to radar have been changed to SS.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs,
I do wish you would take the blinkers off. Somebody with your background could have made a useful contribution to this discussion, given that the wording of the requirements, as it exists at the moment, outlines a very different procedure to that that you have been using for a long time (probably your entire flying career).
ollie_a,
I thank you for posting the section from MATS. Whilst it was useful, it didn't show us anything we didn't already know, as I had already informed the thread that MATS had undergone the same blanket amendment as the AIP (that amendment being the wholesale replacement of "radar"-specific terms to the very general and very broad "ATS surveillance service").
ZappBrannigan, grrowler, *Lancer*
Yes, your reading of the rules is perfectly correct. Yes, what you are posting here does accurately reflect what the rules say.
But what you are reading was recently amended - and there is reason to doubt whether the effect of that amendment was really intended.
Because of that amendment to the wording, the procedure is now changed - and that change was not minor.
So the issue is: was the procedure change intended or not? To my thinking, and I believe there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for this, there was no intention to change the procedure.
So, if it wasn't intended to be changed, then (despite what the words currently say), in effect, it hasn't changed. If you are inclined to reply with something like "but if that's what it says, then that's what it means", then I would ask you to pause and realise that, despite the sanctity we normally associate with them, written word passages can contain errors.
Are any of you guys aware of what the requirements were before this amendment?
In case you weren't, I will tell you that, when making a night visual approach in CTA, provided radar vectoring had not commenced, when cleared for the visual approach you would disregard any assigned altitude and commence descent to the minimum altitude.
But under the current wording, as you guys are acutely aware, you can't do this.
Those of us who have been conducting the night visual approaches in accordance with the previous wording (e.g. Counter-rotation) will tell you that that procedure is simple, efficient, and results in the minimum of R/T exchanges.
Under the procedure as it is currently worded however, the controller will have to make many more altitude assignments. He can't give you the MVA from 30 miles, but the base of the CTA step +500 ft. Then, at the next step, another altitude based on the CTA step. Only when close enough can he assign the final MVA.
Many more R/T exchanges - each one requiring a correct readback from the pilot. Multiply that number of "extra" exchanges by the number of aircraft he has to handle and you will realise that such a procedure is unnecessary - to the point of being stupid.
I am in the process of telephoning the CASA people responsible for this amendment. I was today able to obtain their names and numbers but will have to try again on Monday to get them. I will be asking what the intent of that amendment was, and pointing out that it has resulted in great confusion.
You had to "read between the lines" to see it. Here is the relevant passage, with the wording as it was prior to this amendment (in red text). I have bolded the necessary words (and removed those applicable to day and VFR):
By the way, for those that place so much store in the written word, here is a little challenge for you. Here are the same passages, this time as they currently stand. Look at the word "OR". I have bolded and emphasised it. What does it mean? You can't say it is the "or" between whether you are in CTA or not, because that to the left of the "or" also applies to CTA!
What does the "or" signify? Who's up to the challenge?
What does the "or" signify? Who's up to the challenge?
I do wish you would take the blinkers off. Somebody with your background could have made a useful contribution to this discussion, given that the wording of the requirements, as it exists at the moment, outlines a very different procedure to that that you have been using for a long time (probably your entire flying career).
ollie_a,
I thank you for posting the section from MATS. Whilst it was useful, it didn't show us anything we didn't already know, as I had already informed the thread that MATS had undergone the same blanket amendment as the AIP (that amendment being the wholesale replacement of "radar"-specific terms to the very general and very broad "ATS surveillance service").
ZappBrannigan, grrowler, *Lancer*
Yes, your reading of the rules is perfectly correct. Yes, what you are posting here does accurately reflect what the rules say.
But what you are reading was recently amended - and there is reason to doubt whether the effect of that amendment was really intended.
Because of that amendment to the wording, the procedure is now changed - and that change was not minor.
So the issue is: was the procedure change intended or not? To my thinking, and I believe there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for this, there was no intention to change the procedure.
So, if it wasn't intended to be changed, then (despite what the words currently say), in effect, it hasn't changed. If you are inclined to reply with something like "but if that's what it says, then that's what it means", then I would ask you to pause and realise that, despite the sanctity we normally associate with them, written word passages can contain errors.
Are any of you guys aware of what the requirements were before this amendment?
In case you weren't, I will tell you that, when making a night visual approach in CTA, provided radar vectoring had not commenced, when cleared for the visual approach you would disregard any assigned altitude and commence descent to the minimum altitude.
But under the current wording, as you guys are acutely aware, you can't do this.
Those of us who have been conducting the night visual approaches in accordance with the previous wording (e.g. Counter-rotation) will tell you that that procedure is simple, efficient, and results in the minimum of R/T exchanges.
Under the procedure as it is currently worded however, the controller will have to make many more altitude assignments. He can't give you the MVA from 30 miles, but the base of the CTA step +500 ft. Then, at the next step, another altitude based on the CTA step. Only when close enough can he assign the final MVA.
Many more R/T exchanges - each one requiring a correct readback from the pilot. Multiply that number of "extra" exchanges by the number of aircraft he has to handle and you will realise that such a procedure is unnecessary - to the point of being stupid.
I am in the process of telephoning the CASA people responsible for this amendment. I was today able to obtain their names and numbers but will have to try again on Monday to get them. I will be asking what the intent of that amendment was, and pointing out that it has resulted in great confusion.
Whether ATC has permitted it in the past is a whole other point in itself. But I don't see anything written down which says it's allowed.
11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:
b. by night:
(1) for an IFR flight:
- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
- if being radar vectored, operate not below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is:
- within the prescribed circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations of the higher category are complied with, and the aerodrome is in sight; or
- within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of the aerodrome, aligned with the runway centreline and established not below “on slope” on the T‐VASIS or PAPI; or
- within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at Sydney) of the aerodrome, established not below the ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:
b. by night:
(1) for an IFR flight:
- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
- if being radar vectored, operate not below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is:
- within the prescribed circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations of the higher category are complied with, and the aerodrome is in sight; or
- within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of the aerodrome, aligned with the runway centreline and established not below “on slope” on the T‐VASIS or PAPI; or
- within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at Sydney) of the aerodrome, established not below the ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.
What does the "or" signify? Who's up to the challenge?
11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:
b. by night:
(1) for an IFR flight:
- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
- if receiving an ATS surveillance service, operate not below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is:
- within the prescribed circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations of the higher category are complied with, and the aerodrome is in sight; or
- within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of the aerodrome, aligned with the runway centreline and established not below “on slope” on the T‐VASIS or PAPI; or
- within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at Sydney) of the aerodrome, established not below the ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:
b. by night:
(1) for an IFR flight:
- maintain an altitude not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA or the appropriate step of the DME/GPS Arrival procedure, or 500FT above the lower limit of the CTA, if this is higher; or
- if receiving an ATS surveillance service, operate not below the last assigned altitude;
until the aircraft is:
- within the prescribed circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category, where the limitations of the higher category are complied with, and the aerodrome is in sight; or
- within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of the aerodrome, aligned with the runway centreline and established not below “on slope” on the T‐VASIS or PAPI; or
- within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at Sydney) of the aerodrome, established not below the ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.
Unbelievable.
Rubbish.
You get a Visual Approach when or after you have been assigned the MVA. Note not necessarily M RADAR VA. Stop thinking about yesterday.
given that the wording of the requirements, as it exists at the moment, outlines a very different procedure to that that you have been using for a long time (probably your entire flying career).
You get a Visual Approach when or after you have been assigned the MVA. Note not necessarily M RADAR VA. Stop thinking about yesterday.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGD135 - yes, agreed, good post. It does seem the interpretation of the procedures has changed quite significantly due to the replacement of the term "radar vectoring" to a much more general (and somewhat ambiguous) term.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I went back through my old copies of MATS to find out when the change occurred. Looks like it was MATS version 3, issued on 12 March 2008. Here's what it had to say in the 'what's changed' section:
Please remember I'm not an approach controller so the application of the current rules will have to be explained by someone with more experience than me.
'Vectoring' to be replaced by 'ATS surveillance service' for visual approach at night and terrain clearance rules as Radar Terrain Clearance Charts are used to assign levels to aircraft under own navigation as well as when being vectored.
As I said in post 48:
I hardly think AsA and all it's controllers are dumb enough to blindly accept such a change to MATS just because some wordprocessing type decided to do a global search and replace on "Radar vectoring".
If I'm on a STAR, I'm NOT being radar vectored, but ATC is providing me with an ATC SS, descending me to the terrain lowest safe altitude (or to the limit of the CTA steps- thanks Dick...), from which they authorise me for a Visual Approach when I am on the VASI/GP.
That's probably another reason why they got rid of "radar vectoring".
That's probably another reason why they got rid of "radar vectoring".
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs,
I was working a civil approach unit in March 2008 and knew nothing of this wording change. Up until I left in Sept 08 I was still using the procedure of giving VSA at night under own navigation inside 30NM from any level. I understand it is my obligation to read and accept the changes in MATS/AIP, but the fact that not one of my fellow controllers, supervisors or check-controllers knew of this is a little disturbing. This one small change to the wording makes a world of difference.
Re Darwin controllers and phraseology, if you had flown into the approach unit I was working in after this change, you would have heard us all using that phraseology. Clearly this one has slipped through to the keeper on both sides. I think your insinuation that the RAAF guys don't know their stuff is a little out of order. If the RAAF and AsA are making the same error, where do you stand now?
Cheers,
NFR.
I was working a civil approach unit in March 2008 and knew nothing of this wording change. Up until I left in Sept 08 I was still using the procedure of giving VSA at night under own navigation inside 30NM from any level. I understand it is my obligation to read and accept the changes in MATS/AIP, but the fact that not one of my fellow controllers, supervisors or check-controllers knew of this is a little disturbing. This one small change to the wording makes a world of difference.
Re Darwin controllers and phraseology, if you had flown into the approach unit I was working in after this change, you would have heard us all using that phraseology. Clearly this one has slipped through to the keeper on both sides. I think your insinuation that the RAAF guys don't know their stuff is a little out of order. If the RAAF and AsA are making the same error, where do you stand now?
Cheers,
NFR.
NFR,
I agree, if it were to slip through the cracks of many, it is a concern. Every amendment I get I scrutinise it closely with the current text to see what's really changed. I would have thought one of the most important calls an approach controller makes (at least the one of the most important I hear) would have pricked ears when it was changed. It would seem that an explanation was given; do you guys have a copy of MATS each, and if not why not?
If the rest of the country operated like the Darwin terminal area, there would be gridlock and chaos. Sorry, but that had been my experience. And why isn't there a visual STAR onto 11 from ALLEE? What a WOFTAM going to 10nm final from the southeast in gin-clear weather.
I agree, if it were to slip through the cracks of many, it is a concern. Every amendment I get I scrutinise it closely with the current text to see what's really changed. I would have thought one of the most important calls an approach controller makes (at least the one of the most important I hear) would have pricked ears when it was changed. It would seem that an explanation was given; do you guys have a copy of MATS each, and if not why not?
If the rest of the country operated like the Darwin terminal area, there would be gridlock and chaos. Sorry, but that had been my experience. And why isn't there a visual STAR onto 11 from ALLEE? What a WOFTAM going to 10nm final from the southeast in gin-clear weather.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, if it were to slip through the cracks of many, it is a concern.
No, you actually tell somebody.
An AIRAC, at the very least, would have done the job.
Every amendment I get I scrutinise it closely with the current text to see what's really changed.
I hardly think AsA and all it's controllers are dumb enough to blindly accept such a change to MATS just because ...
I have said this before but will say it again: the fact that nobody was told about this change does tend to suggest that the author had in mind only an innocent little terminology change - not a change to the procedure.
An important detail about Darwin, compared to other capital cities: There is no terrain around Darwin - you could approach Darwin at 1,500 ft AMSL from any direction within 30 NM and you would always have more than 1,000 ft terrain clearance! (The highest obstacle within 30 NM is a tower, at 550 ft AMSL, about 3-4 NM east of the aerodrome).
No other controlled aerodrome in Australia has this luxury. This means that the controllers at those other places may well be a little reluctant to issue the night visual approach from 30 NM. Take Perth, for example. Nowhere near as bad as Cairns or Townsville, terrain-wise, but from discussions with an approach controller there, I found that they have a "local" procedure whereby they don't issue them outside 10 NM.
Just one instance of a pilot demonstrating less than full knowledge of the night visual approach procedure would probably be enough to convince controllers at these places to forever be reserved with the visual approach clearances they issue.
ollie_a, thanks again - one more piece of the puzzle.
And you must have a lot of time on your hands.
Do you scrutinise every approach plate as well?
I have said this before but will say it again: the fact that nobody was told about this change does tend to suggest that the author had in mind only an innocent little terminology change - not a change to the procedure.
Take Perth, for example. Nowhere near as bad as Cairns or Townsville, terrain-wise, but from discussions with an approach controller there, I found that they have a "local" procedure whereby they don't issue them outside 10 NM.
As Renurpp asked earlier, it would be helpful to know what airport the original poster was at when he posed his question.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the rules say, they CANNOT issue a VA UNTIL they assign the last minimum terrain altitude.
According to you then, the wording change to the VA requirements was not just an attempted terminology refinement, but a change to the rules.
So what about all the other places in the AIP where there occurred a similar change (i.e "ATS ss" instead of "radar something") - were all of these rule/procedure changes as well?
Yes? - that's an awful lot of rule and procedure changes to not be telling anybody about.
No? - So how come only the VA changes were rule changes? And just how do you know that?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really sounds like to me they were just making a whole terminology change (ie, radar service/vectoring changed to ATC Surv. Service) and the intent was not a procedure change. Accidentally (or not?) they have made a HUGE change to the procedure. If that was the intent, it sure makes thing a little more complicated than they have to be. No traffic anywhere, visual at 30NM, let them go. Now you have to step them down. That's a rather large change in procedure.
As for Darwin STARs, it's another topic. I left there when it was still a 360 degree free for all and had the time of my life controlling diverse types of traffic. Can't speak for what it's like now.
Cheers,
NFR
As for Darwin STARs, it's another topic. I left there when it was still a 360 degree free for all and had the time of my life controlling diverse types of traffic. Can't speak for what it's like now.
Cheers,
NFR
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke today with a gentlemen from ASA (or could have been CASA) who is involved in the amendment process. He confirmed that the terminology change was for the purpose of accommodating ADS-B.
He has begun a closer look at the effects of that wording change, and we will talk again tomorrow.
It was his opinion that the amendment was not for the purpose of changing the way the night visual approach was to be conducted.
He has begun a closer look at the effects of that wording change, and we will talk again tomorrow.
It was his opinion that the amendment was not for the purpose of changing the way the night visual approach was to be conducted.
FGD135,
Not surprised to hear that, and further proof (if that is in fact their final verdict) that things from the powers that be are often not very well considered... Please keep us (me at least) posted on your findings...
Capt Bloggs,
I wanted to reply to your comment in an earlier post (#38), but forgot! So here it is
I said that if you are descending IAW DGA steps during a visual approach, that restrictions on speed and manoeuvering inside 5 miles do not apply. At least that's what I meant to say... I hope that's how you took it, but you seemed to disagree.
The descent argument aside (albeit the central theme of this thread), am I understanding you correctly? I reckon iff ("iff" = if and only if) you can in fact descend IAW the DGA steps, what's wrong with:
1) tracking inbound to the aid
2) become visual and report same
3) get "cleared visual approach" (request lowest level if need to)
4) continue to the aid (your previously cleared track)
5) ignore restrictions like =< 180kts, =< 130kts for Cat B
6) from CCL area manouever onto final (or base etc. - IAW your cct joining instruction)
7) continue descent in CCA or from VASIS / PAPI and land
Stage 6 goes directly against the restriction on manouvering inside 5nm that we are all familiar with, which applies during conduct of a DGA approach... But this is a visual approach...
Can you agree with the above, or not - am I misreading your post? Thanks.
I thought I was the only one scrutinizing amendments! I used to get ribbed for how long I spent doing them too! It seems in this case I certainly did not catch the full implications of that particular "change" for what it was - thought it a mere terminology change. And yeah, as I said I don't believe the intent has changed. But the written word is the written word... We'll see what comes from FGD135's following up.
No Further Requirements,
Agree 10000% with your post. And this is at the heart of it for mine. A pilot tells you "visual" at 20nm (at night) - could happen. It's quiet, and you could previously give him "cleared visual approach" and leave him to it, but now you can't, because if you do he's stuck at his last level, until in the circling area, and you can't assign him a suitably lower level until closer in...
Could you give him (or her
) "when ready descend [lower level] not below the DGA steps, when established on final or circling area cleared visual approach"? A mouthful I know, but it would get the job done? Might be easier just to step them down!!
PS It's STARs galore in Darwin now, and very annoying too. I can understand it in IMC setting up a sequence to the straight-in IAF, but in VMC with no real traffic - bugger me... Just adds radio work and replanning descent close in when you either:
(i) get shortened up after being told you wouldn't
(ii) get no shortening when you were told to expect it
Not the end of the world, but - simply not neccessary...
CR.
Not surprised to hear that, and further proof (if that is in fact their final verdict) that things from the powers that be are often not very well considered... Please keep us (me at least) posted on your findings...
Capt Bloggs,
I wanted to reply to your comment in an earlier post (#38), but forgot! So here it is
I said that if you are descending IAW DGA steps during a visual approach, that restrictions on speed and manoeuvering inside 5 miles do not apply. At least that's what I meant to say... I hope that's how you took it, but you seemed to disagree.
The descent argument aside (albeit the central theme of this thread), am I understanding you correctly? I reckon iff ("iff" = if and only if) you can in fact descend IAW the DGA steps, what's wrong with:
1) tracking inbound to the aid
2) become visual and report same
3) get "cleared visual approach" (request lowest level if need to)
4) continue to the aid (your previously cleared track)
5) ignore restrictions like =< 180kts, =< 130kts for Cat B
6) from CCL area manouever onto final (or base etc. - IAW your cct joining instruction)
7) continue descent in CCA or from VASIS / PAPI and land
Stage 6 goes directly against the restriction on manouvering inside 5nm that we are all familiar with, which applies during conduct of a DGA approach... But this is a visual approach...
Can you agree with the above, or not - am I misreading your post? Thanks.
I thought I was the only one scrutinizing amendments! I used to get ribbed for how long I spent doing them too! It seems in this case I certainly did not catch the full implications of that particular "change" for what it was - thought it a mere terminology change. And yeah, as I said I don't believe the intent has changed. But the written word is the written word... We'll see what comes from FGD135's following up.
No Further Requirements,
Agree 10000% with your post. And this is at the heart of it for mine. A pilot tells you "visual" at 20nm (at night) - could happen. It's quiet, and you could previously give him "cleared visual approach" and leave him to it, but now you can't, because if you do he's stuck at his last level, until in the circling area, and you can't assign him a suitably lower level until closer in...
Could you give him (or her
) "when ready descend [lower level] not below the DGA steps, when established on final or circling area cleared visual approach"? A mouthful I know, but it would get the job done? Might be easier just to step them down!!PS It's STARs galore in Darwin now, and very annoying too. I can understand it in IMC setting up a sequence to the straight-in IAF, but in VMC with no real traffic - bugger me... Just adds radio work and replanning descent close in when you either:
(i) get shortened up after being told you wouldn't
(ii) get no shortening when you were told to expect it
Not the end of the world, but - simply not neccessary...
CR.
Capt Bloggs (again!)
Disregard most of my previous, I get it. You were not against manouevering inside 5nm, just not until in the circling area - I concur. That is in fact the specific tracking requirements of the visual approach you have been cleared for! But I must add, you are not satisfying visual approach requirements from 5nm, you are satisfying them from the instant you are "cleared visual approach"! That's
(i)a minimum altitude ["a pilot must descend as neccessary"] and
(ii)a tracking requiremnet
I was thinking you meant no manouevering, period - straight to the aid (the MAPT), as you would for such an approach flown in IMC... That's definitely what the previous poster (#12) was implying, which is why I wrote "ignore anyone babbling...."
CR.
Disregard most of my previous, I get it. You were not against manouevering inside 5nm, just not until in the circling area - I concur. That is in fact the specific tracking requirements of the visual approach you have been cleared for! But I must add, you are not satisfying visual approach requirements from 5nm, you are satisfying them from the instant you are "cleared visual approach"! That's
(i)a minimum altitude ["a pilot must descend as neccessary"] and
(ii)a tracking requiremnet
I was thinking you meant no manouevering, period - straight to the aid (the MAPT), as you would for such an approach flown in IMC... That's definitely what the previous poster (#12) was implying, which is why I wrote "ignore anyone babbling...."
CR.