Airliners VFR?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airliners VFR?
I had this question in another thread and I thought I'd break it out for my own knowledge. I'm not a professional pilot, so these questions might seem naive.
But it is my understanding that most, if not all, airliners prohibit VFR flights in the ops manual. Meaning, they're always flown IFR no matter what the weather is. Which sometimes can add unnecessary routings and frustrations from what I gather.
Would it be possible to conduct an approach or a takeoff VFR in special circumstances? How exactly would that transpire, say, on a big airport like Heathrow? Is the slot time tied to the IFR clearance, and if not, do you need a slot time for a VFR departure/arrival?
But it is my understanding that most, if not all, airliners prohibit VFR flights in the ops manual. Meaning, they're always flown IFR no matter what the weather is. Which sometimes can add unnecessary routings and frustrations from what I gather.
Would it be possible to conduct an approach or a takeoff VFR in special circumstances? How exactly would that transpire, say, on a big airport like Heathrow? Is the slot time tied to the IFR clearance, and if not, do you need a slot time for a VFR departure/arrival?
Every time you call visual and get cleared for a visual approach you are changing from IFR to VFR, therefore the transition is easy and it happens regularly at many airports. (perhaps not the major ones). That said I've done many visual approaches into Gatwick at times when the ILS is off or they are operating on the northerly runway.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing how many people think this, I had to teach the controllers at one of Algeria's largest airports that requesting a visual approach at night does not mean that I am VFR which was prohibited at night. It did not work and we still had to proceed overhead then track a radial outbound to a DME distance then do a turn back inbound. A visual approach is NOT canceling IFR.
I am surprised that someone who claims to fly into Gatwick does not know the difference between VFR and a visual approach.
I am surprised that someone who claims to fly into Gatwick does not know the difference between VFR and a visual approach.
Think of it this way, Sky Wave: You can be in sight of the runway ie visual, and able to land without using an instrument approach in conditions that are *less than VMC*. You can't be operating under VFR if you're in less than VMC. Ergo, you are still under IFR, but happen to not need an instrument approach for flight path guidance.
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 14th Jul 2011 at 19:51.
Tinstaafl
Yep, obvious when thought about in those terms.
Incidentally our ops manual states that VFR flights requires duty pilot authorisation. (and ACARS'ing for authorisation every time you do a visual approach would be a bit restrictive
)
Yep, obvious when thought about in those terms.
Incidentally our ops manual states that VFR flights requires duty pilot authorisation. (and ACARS'ing for authorisation every time you do a visual approach would be a bit restrictive
)
Many US carriers get an OpsSpec allowing VFR takeoff and landings but never use it. The takeoff requires picking up the clearance within 50 miles of the departure airport. Works good for charter companies in out of the way places with no cell phone coverage. The landing requires you be in contact with ATC or someone who can give traffic info. I did it one time in OKC when their radar was down and they were stacking planes at the marker for 18R. Told approach we'd cancel IFR and go for 18L and they said we'd be number one, call the tower 118.3.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North America
Age: 64
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least one airline does.
Alaska Airlines is authorized to fly VFR between some of their remote airports in southeastern Alaska. VFR weather minima apply and the routing and altitudes are specified by the operations specifications. The dispatcher and Captain agree to release the flight VFR, and away they go.
The environment is non-radar; flight plans are opened and closed with Juneau Flight Service via remote transmitters as line of sight communication is not possible.
The route is mostly flown by Boeing 737-400 aircraft, now that their -200s are retired. How does it happen you ask? Check lists are run, flight plan is opened with the FSS (Flight Service Station), and they taxi to the runway and takeoff. There is no "Tower", "Clearance Delivery" or "Ground Control" just a runway an associated taxiway the ramp and a small building that serves as the freight shed and passenger terminal. After departure they climb to the appropriate VFR cruising altitude (the flight time is less than 20 minutes) watch for conflicting VFR traffic and eagles (especially during the salmon runs) and enjoy the scenery before descending, complete with the usual VFR radio calls, pattern entry and landing followed by cancelling the VFR flight plan with FSS. Essentially the flight is conducted just like you would do it in a Cessna 172. The FMS may not even be used, and the flight directors not selected. Or if they want they can do the route solid IFR; RNAV departure to approach.
The clip below is of one of the airports, not that this flight was dispatched VFR as I do not know, but it gives you an idea of the region.
The environment is non-radar; flight plans are opened and closed with Juneau Flight Service via remote transmitters as line of sight communication is not possible.
The route is mostly flown by Boeing 737-400 aircraft, now that their -200s are retired. How does it happen you ask? Check lists are run, flight plan is opened with the FSS (Flight Service Station), and they taxi to the runway and takeoff. There is no "Tower", "Clearance Delivery" or "Ground Control" just a runway an associated taxiway the ramp and a small building that serves as the freight shed and passenger terminal. After departure they climb to the appropriate VFR cruising altitude (the flight time is less than 20 minutes) watch for conflicting VFR traffic and eagles (especially during the salmon runs) and enjoy the scenery before descending, complete with the usual VFR radio calls, pattern entry and landing followed by cancelling the VFR flight plan with FSS. Essentially the flight is conducted just like you would do it in a Cessna 172. The FMS may not even be used, and the flight directors not selected. Or if they want they can do the route solid IFR; RNAV departure to approach.
The clip below is of one of the airports, not that this flight was dispatched VFR as I do not know, but it gives you an idea of the region.
Last edited by Northbeach; 15th Jul 2011 at 00:20.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing in my airlines ops manuals to prevent us flying VFR. In some of our more remote locations it can be a regular occurrence to cancel IFR before departure and proceed VFR, assuming the weather is ok. It can be a tactical tool in the box on many occasions.
Same with visual approaches. If the wx is good and theres nothing to effect traffic wise then i'll usually always fly a visual app. We're still IFR off course. Saves time, saves money. If its the end of a long day though then I may elect to fly the ILS. No point making life hard if your tired.
Same with visual approaches. If the wx is good and theres nothing to effect traffic wise then i'll usually always fly a visual app. We're still IFR off course. Saves time, saves money. If its the end of a long day though then I may elect to fly the ILS. No point making life hard if your tired.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIKECR: Is it possible to transition from VFR to IFR in-flight or must the whole flight be conducted under one or other set of rules? In the example you give, if you were to leave from a remote airport in VFR but your destination is a busy airport such as LGW/LHR, would you need to change to IFR en route?
I also have a question about visual approaches, if I may. I understand that a visual approach can be a quicker way to get on the ground because it avoids flying the 'full procedure' (hope that's an accurate summary). Well, does this mean that an airport has a separate approach procedure for an instrument and a visual approach? One if you want to use the ILS and one if you want to fly a visual approach? Or is there just one procedure that you can fly with instruments or visually so ATC knows everyone is 'coming in the same way'?
I would be grateful for any succinct explanation as I'm not a professional and realise I may be opening a can of worms!
NB: I understand the difference between ILS/precision and non-precision approaches so no need to explain that.
I also have a question about visual approaches, if I may. I understand that a visual approach can be a quicker way to get on the ground because it avoids flying the 'full procedure' (hope that's an accurate summary). Well, does this mean that an airport has a separate approach procedure for an instrument and a visual approach? One if you want to use the ILS and one if you want to fly a visual approach? Or is there just one procedure that you can fly with instruments or visually so ATC knows everyone is 'coming in the same way'?
I would be grateful for any succinct explanation as I'm not a professional and realise I may be opening a can of worms!
NB: I understand the difference between ILS/precision and non-precision approaches so no need to explain that.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can flip from IFR to VFR whenever you wish. But it may not be the most efficient way of doing things. Also, some airports have so called noise abatement procedures (a method of making sure the same houses always get all the noise) which 'heavy' aircraft have to follow. Additionally, some airspace is permanent IFR.
A visual approach is almost always the most efficient way of arriving. But again, just to make sure the same houses get all the noise, every approach from every plane, many UK airports insists large aircraft have to join finals at 6-7 miles or so. You'll fly the same nominal approach as an ILS but this time by eyeball and not the clocks BUT you'll probably still have the ILS set up. At more enlightened airports, a visual approach may be possible from with finals of just two miles. And also with a visual approach you have the possibility of landing on a non-duty runway where the nav-aids are turned off. You'd do this to save flight and/or taxi time.
A visual approach is almost always the most efficient way of arriving. But again, just to make sure the same houses get all the noise, every approach from every plane, many UK airports insists large aircraft have to join finals at 6-7 miles or so. You'll fly the same nominal approach as an ILS but this time by eyeball and not the clocks BUT you'll probably still have the ILS set up. At more enlightened airports, a visual approach may be possible from with finals of just two miles. And also with a visual approach you have the possibility of landing on a non-duty runway where the nav-aids are turned off. You'd do this to save flight and/or taxi time.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piltdownman... I haven't seen too many 747s doing 2 -mile finals and if we put one of the old BOAC brigade in a VC10 on at less than 10 miles fuses would have blown!!!
Busy airports are radar controlled because of the need to achieve a high landing rate which is difficult to achieve otherwise.
Busy airports are radar controlled because of the need to achieve a high landing rate which is difficult to achieve otherwise.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that, PM.
Is this because the approach plate for that airport says you must do so or because ATC require you to? (HD jumped in before me: it must be a traffic-management issue, too.)
I am struggling to understand the relationship between an approach procedure/plate and a visual approach. Am I correct in thinking that a visual approach allows you to 'short-cut' part of the approach procedure?
In a non-precision approach, you have to be at specific altitudes at specific points, right? But if it is also a visual approach, do those requirements not apply? I don't see how you can have both.
many UK airports insists large aircraft have to join finals at 6-7 miles or so
I am struggling to understand the relationship between an approach procedure/plate and a visual approach. Am I correct in thinking that a visual approach allows you to 'short-cut' part of the approach procedure?
In a non-precision approach, you have to be at specific altitudes at specific points, right? But if it is also a visual approach, do those requirements not apply? I don't see how you can have both.
Bit risky sticking my head above the parapet after my last fail, but:-
A bit of both in practice. Some of the Jeppeson booklets state minimum distances to intercept final approach and in other cases ATC will advise this when clearing you for a visual approach.
Regulations will be in the AIP. Here's an extract of LGW's AIP:-
A visual approach allows you to visually manoeuvre to a landing. This may involve joining downwind, base or a simple straight in approach.
Except for local regulation such as the Noise Abatement requirements there is no need to carryout any part of the instrument approach procedure.
No they don't. These minimum height requirements are there to stop you hitting terrain when in IMC. They don't apply when doing a visual approach.
Is this because the approach plate for that airport says you must do so or because ATC require you to? (HD jumped in before me: it must be a traffic-management issue, too.)
Regulations will be in the AIP. Here's an extract of LGW's AIP:-
2. .
a. Except where sub-paragraph (12) (b) applies, the aircraft shall not join the final approach to either runway at a height of less than 1500 ft aal
b. where the aircraft is a propeller driven aircraft whose MTWA does not exceed 5700 kg, it shall not join the final approach to either runway at the aerodrome at a height of less than 1000 ft aal and shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the height of the approach path normally indicated by the PAPI.
13. .
a. Where the aircraft is using the ILS in IMC or VMC it shall not descend below 2000 ft (Gatwick QNH) before intercepting the glidepath, nor thereafter fly below the glidepath; and
b. an aircraft approaching without assistance from the ILS shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the height of the approach path normally indicated by the PAPI
14. Between the hours of 2330(local) and 0600(local), inbound aircraft, whether or not making use of the ILS localizer and irrespective of weight or type of approach, shall not join the centre-line below 3,000 ft (Gatwick QNH) closer than 10 nm from touchdown.
a. Except where sub-paragraph (12) (b) applies, the aircraft shall not join the final approach to either runway at a height of less than 1500 ft aal
b. where the aircraft is a propeller driven aircraft whose MTWA does not exceed 5700 kg, it shall not join the final approach to either runway at the aerodrome at a height of less than 1000 ft aal and shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the height of the approach path normally indicated by the PAPI.
13. .
a. Where the aircraft is using the ILS in IMC or VMC it shall not descend below 2000 ft (Gatwick QNH) before intercepting the glidepath, nor thereafter fly below the glidepath; and
b. an aircraft approaching without assistance from the ILS shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the height of the approach path normally indicated by the PAPI
14. Between the hours of 2330(local) and 0600(local), inbound aircraft, whether or not making use of the ILS localizer and irrespective of weight or type of approach, shall not join the centre-line below 3,000 ft (Gatwick QNH) closer than 10 nm from touchdown.
I am struggling to understand the relationship between an approach procedure/plate and a visual approach. Am I correct in thinking that a visual approach allows you to 'short-cut' part of the approach procedure?
Except for local regulation such as the Noise Abatement requirements there is no need to carryout any part of the instrument approach procedure.
In a non-precision approach, you have to be at specific altitudes at specific points, right? But if it is also a visual approach, do those requirements not apply? I don't see how you can have both
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC has nothing to do with requirements for putting aircraft on the ILS; they simply follow the local procedures.
When an aircraft is cleared for a visual approach the pilot flies the thing visually. He decides on the circuit he flies, when and where he turns on to fianl approach, descent rate, etc. There may be restrictions on descent due to other traffic, of which the pilot will be advised. Otherwise he is on his own and not restricted by altitudes on approach plates because he almost certainly will not be following the tracks on those plates.
The factors that influence ATC decisions on sequencing aircraft are a) other traffic and b) noise abatement. There may be local noise requirements that aircraft must not descend below xxx feet until established on the ILS, or must not join the ILS inside a particular distance from touchdown.
If all that doesn't matter, the "standard" distance at which aircraft are turned on to final approach usually depends on pilots' requirements. When flyinjg an ILS, ATC is given to understand that commercial aircraft should be fully established by 6-8 miles out. If it's a clockwork-mouse type aircraft this distance can be much reduced.
When an aircraft is cleared for a visual approach the pilot flies the thing visually. He decides on the circuit he flies, when and where he turns on to fianl approach, descent rate, etc. There may be restrictions on descent due to other traffic, of which the pilot will be advised. Otherwise he is on his own and not restricted by altitudes on approach plates because he almost certainly will not be following the tracks on those plates.
The factors that influence ATC decisions on sequencing aircraft are a) other traffic and b) noise abatement. There may be local noise requirements that aircraft must not descend below xxx feet until established on the ILS, or must not join the ILS inside a particular distance from touchdown.
If all that doesn't matter, the "standard" distance at which aircraft are turned on to final approach usually depends on pilots' requirements. When flyinjg an ILS, ATC is given to understand that commercial aircraft should be fully established by 6-8 miles out. If it's a clockwork-mouse type aircraft this distance can be much reduced.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow is class A airspace. IFR is mandatory.The only exception would be Special VFR,which is only available to aircraft 5700kg or less.So you can't sneak out in your A380 to avoid a slot time.A visual approach by an aircraft on an IFR flight plan is still IFR.The pilot becomes responsible for terrain clearance.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sloppy Joe...You are correct but in that case it may be more of an "Aviation English" situation rather than their regs...
Same thing in Tunis..."Tunis, VP-*** 8 mile final, request Visual"...
"Roger VP-*** report overhead, cleared for VOR/DME rwy ** approach"...
Same thing in Tunis..."Tunis, VP-*** 8 mile final, request Visual"...
"Roger VP-*** report overhead, cleared for VOR/DME rwy ** approach"...