Visual Approach
RENURPP
That actually should have been "CTR".
Once cleared a visual approach, if the tower were class D, for example, then the person could descend via DGA the steps as required.
What I was getting at was that at the beginning of the thread you poked a stick at people for not fully understanding the 'bread and butter' rules, but then you yourself have been somewhat confused by the rules.
That actually should have been "CTR".
Once cleared a visual approach, if the tower were class D, for example, then the person could descend via DGA the steps as required.
What I was getting at was that at the beginning of the thread you poked a stick at people for not fully understanding the 'bread and butter' rules, but then you yourself have been somewhat confused by the rules.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC, in my recent experience, solves that confusion by saying ...
It should not be so grey 
1. We saw, from the old AIP book, that the words "being radar vectored" were in the place that is today occupied by the words "receiving ATS surveillance service". A small wording change, but a BIG change to procedures if it now means what you think it means. Do you think CASA would have made such a change without telling anybody?
There have been no NOTAMS, AIRACS or articles in the monthly magazine. There have not even been any published incident reports arising from pilots not correctly following this supposedly new procedure.
And,
2. Why make such a big change to this procedure? There was nothing wrong or unsafe about the procedure when it used the words "being radar vectored".
But the strongest evidence can be seen in everyday (night) flying:
3. I routinely fly into Darwin at night, on a track not aligned with the runway, and do visual approaches. At the point where I'm cleared for the visual approach, the last assigned altitude has often been A080.
Of course, I continue the descent through that assigned altitude, as my limiting altitude is now the MSA.
Despite having been doing this for 4 years now I have never been queried by ATC or sent the more formal "please explain".
These occasions have all been where no radar vectoring was involved - I had been tracking to Darwin under my own navigation, in accordance with my clearance. I remember one occasion where radar vectoring did occur and one of the last instructions to me from approach was to "descend to 1,600" (the MSA).
Here are the typical radio exchanges:
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!
This is another important point: controllers want, and need to have, short and simple procedures so as to minimise the radio exchanges.
Is there an air traffic controller following this thread that can finally settle this question? I will be continuing to conduct the visual approaches exactly as described above.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGD135, I've never really thought that what Darwin Approach does is a good example for anything! 
Especially when it is simply wrong. I absolutely agree that it should be kept simple, and it definately doesn't help with so much misinformation and bad examples around. Your points 1 and 2 are irrelevant -- it doesn't matter whether there have been NOTAMS or not, the AIP is very clear.
They should be saying "ABC, descend to 1600, cleared visual approach", or "ABC, descend not below the CTA steps, cleared visual approach", or "ABC, cleared DME arrival, cleared visual approach when visual" etc etc.
They must clear you lower than 8000 if they are not operating under procedural control (at night), unless you want to maintain 8000 until the circling area/5/7/10nm boundary.
Especially when it is simply wrong. I absolutely agree that it should be kept simple, and it definately doesn't help with so much misinformation and bad examples around. Your points 1 and 2 are irrelevant -- it doesn't matter whether there have been NOTAMS or not, the AIP is very clear.They should be saying "ABC, descend to 1600, cleared visual approach", or "ABC, descend not below the CTA steps, cleared visual approach", or "ABC, cleared DME arrival, cleared visual approach when visual" etc etc.
They must clear you lower than 8000 if they are not operating under procedural control (at night), unless you want to maintain 8000 until the circling area/5/7/10nm boundary.
Last edited by *Lancer*; 11th May 2009 at 14:38.
Forget about the term Radar Vectoring. It's gone. History.
It does not mean that at all, and if you take that view then you are misleading yourself. I am being given an "ATC Surv service" when I am on a STAR being descended to the radar lowest safe, then at the end they clear me for a Visual Approach. That is not radar vectoring.
provided you take the view that "ATS surveillance service" really means "radar vectored".
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget about the term Radar Vectoring. It's gone. History.
But the concept is alive and well. Look at the radio failure procedures in ERSA/EMERG. Specifically, para 1.5.4 g. (ii), where it specifically mentions "being vectored".
Interestingly, whilst looking over this section, I noticed that the term "ATS surveillance service" has appeared here as well! I would take this as further evidence that, rather than being procedure changes, the term is all about wording changes - brought about, no doubt, by the introduction of ADS-B (as suggested by Capn Bloggs).
Here is one more bit of evidence I forgot to include in my previous post:
An "ATS surveillance service" is something you can request. Have a look at Jepps - ATC, page AU-1001, para 1.1. I quote it here:
1.1 Pilots requesting an ATS surveillance service should address their request to the ATS unit with which they are communicating.
The simple reality is that for this "ATS ss" to mean, in the context of night visual approaches, simply being radar identified and in CTA, then this makes no sense whatsoever. Whereas, meaning "being radar vectored" makes all the sense in the world.
We have found that, sometime between 2005 and now, the wording relating to night visual approaches changed - the term "being radar vectored" was changed to this new term ("in receipt of an ATS ss").
If the posts to this thread are any guide, and I believe they are, then very few pilots in Australia were aware of that change. This would suggest that pilots are still conducting visual approaches the way they were prior to that wording change.
So, almost every night at an Australian capital city aerodrome, there would be numerous visual approaches that, despite the wording change, are conducted they way they used to be.
If that wording change means a procedure change of the magnitude that posters here are insisting on, then we are talking about major breaches of procedure, every night, involving high capacity passenger aircraft.
Capn Bloggs, how did you conduct visual approaches, with regard to assigned altitudes, back in 2005? Has your conduct of them changed with the arrival of this new wording?
And as for that "definition" that somebody posted. I wouldn't put too much store in that - it was very very broad - to the point of being useless! Definitions, if they are published at all, are sometimes misleading, or only serve to add to the confusion. I would suggest that is the case on this occasion.
I agree it must be some thing different
However I wasn't suggesting you request to be radar identified, I was suggesting that you cannot be under ATS surveillance unless you are identified.
Being radar identified in CTA is not something you can request! So, this "ATS surveillance service" must be something different to that.
Crikey!
Let's keep the discussion in context shall we? We're talking about night visual approaches, not radio failure procedures.
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".
But the concept is alive and well. Look at the radio failure procedures in ERSA/EMERG. Specifically, para 1.5.4 g. (ii), where it specifically mentions "being vectored".
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".
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 40
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, what I said before is correct. From AIP;
NB. you do not even have to be in CTA to be receiving a surveillance service, as long as you are identified.
For example, see AIP 3.3 para 2.16.9. Even VFR flight following is a surveillance service; there's definitely no vectors being provided there.
Unfortunately as an area controller I can't comment on the vagaries of visual approaches however.
ATS Surveillance Service: Term used to indicate an air traffic service
provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system.
Air Traffic Service (ATS): A generic term meaning variously, flight
information service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air traffic
control service
provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system.
Air Traffic Service (ATS): A generic term meaning variously, flight
information service, alerting service, air traffic advisory service, air traffic
control service
For example, see AIP 3.3 para 2.16.9. Even VFR flight following is a surveillance service; there's definitely no vectors being provided there.
Unfortunately as an area controller I can't comment on the vagaries of visual approaches however.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is simple! Forget surveillance/vectors/CTA etc... At night, you cannot descend below your last CLEARED altitude until you are at the applicable distance (circling/5/7/10nm).
FGD135 every high capacity RPT aircraft I've ever heard says: "REQUEST FURTHER DESCENT", which is what you should be doing too! Maybe those in Darwin ATC will figure it out then. After all, the AIP is what should be done... controllers are just as prone to stuffing it up as we are!
FGD135 every high capacity RPT aircraft I've ever heard says: "REQUEST FURTHER DESCENT", which is what you should be doing too! Maybe those in Darwin ATC will figure it out then. After all, the AIP is what should be done... controllers are just as prone to stuffing it up as we are!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 39
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lancer, I agree with you.
In FGD135's case and mine (post#1), i think the problem/confusion is due to the controller not being aware of the rules.
Being cleared for a visual approach at night in CTA at A080 just isn't going to work unless you circle down within the circling area (impracticle)
I think its just a case of requesting that further descent or tracking to a 5/10nm final to descend on the ILS/PAPI/TVASI
In FGD135's case and mine (post#1), i think the problem/confusion is due to the controller not being aware of the rules.
Being cleared for a visual approach at night in CTA at A080 just isn't going to work unless you circle down within the circling area (impracticle)
I think its just a case of requesting that further descent or tracking to a 5/10nm final to descend on the ILS/PAPI/TVASI
Hi folks.
Yes ATC ss used to be a radar or identification service and was changed to accomodate ADSB.
There are a couple of ways ATC can clear you for VSA at night.
1. Inside 30nm from destination.
-VFR anytime.
-IFR the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or
water; and the visibility along the flight path is not less than 5000 M
You then must comply with all of the AIP restictions of a VSA
or
If you are being vectored for sequencing/separation or if you are being descended to a radar lowest safe whilst being recieving a surveilance service[ie I am monitoring you on a specific track ] then ATC must assign the min vectoring altitude and give heading or tracking instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft within the circling area.
The required phrasology is then "when established on the PAPI [or in the circling area] cleared visual approach.
I believe the controller in the origional question is either being lax or doesn't understand the restrictions that they are applying to your descent.
Otherwise they would clear you to track as required for final.
Hope it helps.
AA
Yes ATC ss used to be a radar or identification service and was changed to accomodate ADSB.
There are a couple of ways ATC can clear you for VSA at night.
1. Inside 30nm from destination.
-VFR anytime.
-IFR the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or
water; and the visibility along the flight path is not less than 5000 M
You then must comply with all of the AIP restictions of a VSA
or
If you are being vectored for sequencing/separation or if you are being descended to a radar lowest safe whilst being recieving a surveilance service[ie I am monitoring you on a specific track ] then ATC must assign the min vectoring altitude and give heading or tracking instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft within the circling area.
The required phrasology is then "when established on the PAPI [or in the circling area] cleared visual approach.
I believe the controller in the origional question is either being lax or doesn't understand the restrictions that they are applying to your descent.
Otherwise they would clear you to track as required for final.
Hope it helps.
AA
According to AIP, ATC can only authorise a visual approach when, amongst other things:
receiving an ATS surveillance service, the flight has
been assigned the MVA and given heading or tracking
instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft
within the circling area of the aerodrome.
If they aren't doing that, ask them to.
My experience has been that in radar coverage, ATC will progressively assign lower levels until the "ESTABLISHED ON OR ABOVE PAPI, CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH" call, or in non-radar, "DESCEND NOT BELOW THE DME/GPS STEPS, CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH" or similar. Sometimes they need a nudge (as we all do), but just do what you're told, and as already pointed out, you can't descend below your last assigned level except in accordance with the AIP.
receiving an ATS surveillance service, the flight has
been assigned the MVA and given heading or tracking
instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft
within the circling area of the aerodrome.
If they aren't doing that, ask them to.
My experience has been that in radar coverage, ATC will progressively assign lower levels until the "ESTABLISHED ON OR ABOVE PAPI, CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH" call, or in non-radar, "DESCEND NOT BELOW THE DME/GPS STEPS, CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH" or similar. Sometimes they need a nudge (as we all do), but just do what you're told, and as already pointed out, you can't descend below your last assigned level except in accordance with the AIP.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or if you are being descended to a radar lowest safe whilst being recieving a surveilance service[ie I am monitoring you on a specific track ] then ATC must assign the min vectoring altitude and give heading or tracking instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft within the circling area.
Prior to the change, the step down to MVA and papi's, ils RT was only required if you were vectored.
The change was only noted as an RT change at the time, not a procedure change. Anyone know?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The change was only noted as an RT change at the time, not a procedure change. Anyone know?
There are numerous other places in the AIP where the same terminology changes have occurred. That is, the term "ATS surveillance service" now exists where previously was some term involving the word "radar".
They can't all be procedure changes. I would wager that NONE of them are.
To my thinking, we have NOT seen a procedure change in respect of night visual approach requirements - somebody has just noticed the wording change and we have all allowed ourselves to get highly confused by it.
I think the reason for the wording change was simple and has been established in this thread. That is, with the introduction of ADS-B, somebody in CASA felt it was time to go through all the documentation, changing all references involving "radar" to become "ATS surveillance service".
Unfortunately though, the meaning of "ATS surveillance service" is very very broad - so broad as to be useless, in fact. But it replaced some (very narrow), highly specific terms, such as "radar vectored", so naturally, the intricacies of some procedures will have now been obscured.
I would also wager that some other passages in the AIP, having been similarly amended, are now similarly confusing and misleading.
Excellent post, Pera, as the thread was thoroughly bogged down over the definition of "ATS ss" but you have now rescued it. I believe it was my own duff line of argument that was responsible for the thread getting so constipated.
So where are we on the question of assigned altitudes when making a night visual approach in CTA?
Assuming that the new wording is only a red herring and that the rules have not changed in the 15 years that I have been flying (and the balance of probabilities surely, surely suggests this is the case), then:
When you hear "cleared visual approach", you must descend to the minimum altitude. You cannot descend lower than the minimum until you are circling area or on final at 5/7/10.
If you were being radar vectored, then the controller will have just assigned you the minimum altitude (the MVA). But if you weren't being radar vectored, then you need to determine the minimum yourself - and you do that by looking at your chart (the 10/25NM MSA) - and you disregard any intermediate assigned altitude.
All very simple after all.
i think the problem/confusion is due to the controller not being aware of the rules.
I've never really thought that what Darwin Approach does is a good example for anything!
I went in there again last night, as a matter fact. Again it was a night visual approach. The RT exchanges were almost identical to the example I gave in that earlier post. The only differences were that, this time, the ATIS was OSCAR, the POB 5 and the runway 11.
Last edited by FGD135; 13th May 2009 at 23:34. Reason: Added "disregard any intermediate assigned altitude"
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does MATs say.
In his view, this change was a terminology change only - not any change to actual procedure. He agreed that the change had been poorly effected and would most likely cause a great deal of confusion.
P.S. Please reread the bottom portion of my previous post (made last night) - I have edited it this morning to add the phrase "disregard any intermediate assigned altitude".
This has turned into a very interesting thread indeed!!
I must confess, I still feel the intent of this section of AIP / Jepp has NOT changed, but I find it harder and harder to argue that in truth, when the specific wording of the document is examined, that "nothing has changed"...
Which in turn means I have been busting the rules on my night VA's since the change. More proof (as though I needed it!) that you never stop learning... So thanks to the original poster for a good question, and all posters for their thoughts on it.
Re: ATC - An interesting observation which may or may not be relevant here, is that Darwin ATC are military, while MOST other radar locations (ie. capital/large cities) are civil... But Townsville = miitary, yes? So...
Another point I'd like to add - As a pilot flying into a random location... Are you expected to know if you're getting an ATC SS? Agreed, most would know this as a point of situational awareness or local knowledge, but if your expected / required / allowed behaviour during a visual approach is altered, surely it must be CRYSTAL CLEAR. Perhaps the advice "you are identified" does in fact serve that purpose? (That's a question, not a statement...) And why in fact should a "visual approach" be executed differently in radar and non-radar airspace?
Something else has not really been mentioned so far - the words "MUST DESCEND AS NECCESSARY" is used in the opening to 11.6.5 - Minimum Altitude Requirements.
So what is "neccessary", and why is it a "must"? Why is it written like that? To me, on an inbound course that is close to the runway alignment, it is "neccessary" to descend (only if able to, hence this entire discussion) and thus avoid unneccessary manoeuvering overhead, as well as freeing up levels earlier for following aircraft - basically this amounts to simplifying and increasing efficiency. If I am visual, why can I not descend to MSA (if <25nm) or IAW DGA steps (if so equipped)? Then when in the CCA I have no need to loiter to lose height, but can join an abbreviated circuit at a height allowing normal descent to landing?
Is it really only simple terminology preventing me from legally continuing descent after "cleared visual approach" (as I and many others, for years, legally did before), am I missing something?
*Lancer* - not sure about your comment re: STARS... Were vectors once an unavoidable result of a STAR clearance?
As for STARs into Darwin, well that is a whole other discussion...
CR.
I must confess, I still feel the intent of this section of AIP / Jepp has NOT changed, but I find it harder and harder to argue that in truth, when the specific wording of the document is examined, that "nothing has changed"...
Which in turn means I have been busting the rules on my night VA's since the change. More proof (as though I needed it!) that you never stop learning... So thanks to the original poster for a good question, and all posters for their thoughts on it.
Re: ATC - An interesting observation which may or may not be relevant here, is that Darwin ATC are military, while MOST other radar locations (ie. capital/large cities) are civil... But Townsville = miitary, yes? So...
Another point I'd like to add - As a pilot flying into a random location... Are you expected to know if you're getting an ATC SS? Agreed, most would know this as a point of situational awareness or local knowledge, but if your expected / required / allowed behaviour during a visual approach is altered, surely it must be CRYSTAL CLEAR. Perhaps the advice "you are identified" does in fact serve that purpose? (That's a question, not a statement...) And why in fact should a "visual approach" be executed differently in radar and non-radar airspace?
Something else has not really been mentioned so far - the words "MUST DESCEND AS NECCESSARY" is used in the opening to 11.6.5 - Minimum Altitude Requirements.
So what is "neccessary", and why is it a "must"? Why is it written like that? To me, on an inbound course that is close to the runway alignment, it is "neccessary" to descend (only if able to, hence this entire discussion) and thus avoid unneccessary manoeuvering overhead, as well as freeing up levels earlier for following aircraft - basically this amounts to simplifying and increasing efficiency. If I am visual, why can I not descend to MSA (if <25nm) or IAW DGA steps (if so equipped)? Then when in the CCA I have no need to loiter to lose height, but can join an abbreviated circuit at a height allowing normal descent to landing?
Is it really only simple terminology preventing me from legally continuing descent after "cleared visual approach" (as I and many others, for years, legally did before), am I missing something?
*Lancer* - not sure about your comment re: STARS... Were vectors once an unavoidable result of a STAR clearance?
As for STARs into Darwin, well that is a whole other discussion...
CR.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The STAR comment was to try and highlight that radar vectors and an ATS Surveillance Service are now two different things. The CASA publication concerning the terminology change does indeed stress the need for ATC to confirm aircraft are receiving a SS using the phaseology: "identified" etc.
Here's what the law actually says (again):
"AIP GEN 2.2
ATS Surveillance Service: Term used to indicate an air traffic service
provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system.
ATS Surveillance System: A generic term meaning variously, ADS-B, PSR,
SSR or any comparable ground-based system that enables the identification
of aircraft.
AIP ENR
11.6.1 ATC Authorisation. Except as detailed in para 11.6.2, the criteria
under which visual approaches may be authorised by ATC are as
follows:
a. For an IFR flight:
(1) By day when:
- the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome; and
- the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the
ground or water; and
- visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000M,
or for helicopters 800M, or the aerodrome is in sight.
(2) By night when:
- the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the
ground or water; and
- visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000M;
and
- the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome; or
- receiving an ATS surveillance service, the flight has
been assigned the MVA and given heading or tracking
instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft
within the circling area of the aerodrome.
b. For a VFR flight by day and night, the aircraft is within 30NM of
the aerodrome.
11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:
a. by day:
(1) for an IFR flight, remain not less than 500FT above the
lower limit of the CTA; and
(2) for IFR and VFR flights, operate not below the lowest altitude
permissible for VFR flight (CAR 157).
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.
(2) for a VFR flight:
- maintain not less than the lowest altitude permissible
for VFR flight (CAR 174B) until the aircraft is
within 3NM of the aerodrome and the aerodrome is
in sight.
It seems to pretty clearly indicate that ATC using radar must clear you to a lower altitude to facilitate your descent within the circling area/5/7/10nm, and that the PIC must not descend below the last assigned altitude until within the circling area/5/7/10nm.
"ABC, request further descent"
Here's what the law actually says (again):
"AIP GEN 2.2
ATS Surveillance Service: Term used to indicate an air traffic service
provided directly by means of an ATS surveillance system.
ATS Surveillance System: A generic term meaning variously, ADS-B, PSR,
SSR or any comparable ground-based system that enables the identification
of aircraft.
AIP ENR
11.6.1 ATC Authorisation. Except as detailed in para 11.6.2, the criteria
under which visual approaches may be authorised by ATC are as
follows:
a. For an IFR flight:
(1) By day when:
- the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome; and
- the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the
ground or water; and
- visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000M,
or for helicopters 800M, or the aerodrome is in sight.
(2) By night when:
- the pilot has established and can continue flight to the
aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the
ground or water; and
- visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000M;
and
- the aircraft is within 30NM of the aerodrome; or
- receiving an ATS surveillance service, the flight has
been assigned the MVA and given heading or tracking
instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft
within the circling area of the aerodrome.
b. For a VFR flight by day and night, the aircraft is within 30NM of
the aerodrome.
11.6.5 Minimum Altitude Requirements. During the conduct of a visual
approach, a pilot must descend as necessary to:
a. by day:
(1) for an IFR flight, remain not less than 500FT above the
lower limit of the CTA; and
(2) for IFR and VFR flights, operate not below the lowest altitude
permissible for VFR flight (CAR 157).
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.
(2) for a VFR flight:
- maintain not less than the lowest altitude permissible
for VFR flight (CAR 174B) until the aircraft is
within 3NM of the aerodrome and the aerodrome is
in sight.
It seems to pretty clearly indicate that ATC using radar must clear you to a lower altitude to facilitate your descent within the circling area/5/7/10nm, and that the PIC must not descend below the last assigned altitude until within the circling area/5/7/10nm.
"ABC, request further descent"
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just returned to this thread, and yes it's got interesting. To quote the last post:
I agree completely, and while I'm happy to listen to and analyse all others' opinions, I still haven't read anything in law or published procedure that says I can, when arriving at a Class C aerodrome and cleared visual approach, descend below the last assigned altitude until within the circling area (or the 5/7/10 rules if coming straight in). Seems to be quite a few people who are adamant you can descend on the DGA steps etc. when cleared visual approach in controlled airspace, below the last assigned altitude, while still outside the circling area. While I'm not saying this is plain wrong, my interpretation of the published procedures indicates that it's not correct.
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.
It seems to pretty clearly indicate that ATC using radar must clear you to a lower altitude to facilitate your descent within the circling area/5/7/10nm, and that the PIC must not descend below the last assigned altitude until within the circling area/5/7/10nm.
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.