Visual Approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Trinidad
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual Approach
Ok can anyone help me with this question.
I have continuously heard pilots request the visual approach while flying an IFR approach. Hopefully they only do this when they have the field in sight!
My question is : after being cleared for the visual approach, are they still flying IFR?
I have continuously heard pilots request the visual approach while flying an IFR approach. Hopefully they only do this when they have the field in sight!
My question is : after being cleared for the visual approach, are they still flying IFR?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bucks. UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot does not necessarily have to have the field in sight but must be in a position to maintain visual reference to the surface.
ATC remains responsible for separation from other IFR and Special VFR flights and if necessary must include an initial level which will ensure that the aircraft remains inside controlled airspace.
ATC remains responsible for separation from other IFR and Special VFR flights and if necessary must include an initial level which will ensure that the aircraft remains inside controlled airspace.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
visual approach
My understanding of a visual approach is that you do have to have the airfield in sight, and can maintain adequate visual contact to manoeuvre visually onto final approach. There are minimium cloud ceilings and minimum RVR criteria as well; you remain IFR.
Reduced separation in the vicinity of the airfield can be applied by ATC.
An initial "not below" level may be imposed by ATC for separation purposes.
Increasingly, Operators do not permit crews to make visual approaches at night even though it might be CAVOK.
A visual approach is not the same as a VMC, or VFR approach.
Further details in MATS part one.
Reduced separation in the vicinity of the airfield can be applied by ATC.
An initial "not below" level may be imposed by ATC for separation purposes.
Increasingly, Operators do not permit crews to make visual approaches at night even though it might be CAVOK.
A visual approach is not the same as a VMC, or VFR approach.
Further details in MATS part one.
Last edited by ecj; 12th Aug 2003 at 03:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Trinidad
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok guys I understand now that you are still IFR. Thanks!Brimstone says that you dont need to have the field in sight, however i have heard controllers constantly ask wether or not the pilot has the field in sight, after he requested the visual.
I think the ruling is as u said 'ecj' .Can anybody clear this up?
I think the ruling is as u said 'ecj' .Can anybody clear this up?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In the golf tee
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATS prt 1 section 3 chapter Page 10
Visual Approach
To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights may be authorised to execute visual approaches if the pilot reports he can maintain visual reference to the surface and
a) the reported cloud ceiling is not below the initial approach level; or
b) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the visibilitywill permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance exists that this can be accomplished.
Standard separation shall be effected between such aircraft and othe IFR and/or SVFR aircraft
Visual Approach
To expedite traffic at any time, IFR flights may be authorised to execute visual approaches if the pilot reports he can maintain visual reference to the surface and
a) the reported cloud ceiling is not below the initial approach level; or
b) the pilot reports at any time after commencing the approach procedure that the visibilitywill permit a visual approach and landing, and a reasonable assurance exists that this can be accomplished.
Standard separation shall be effected between such aircraft and othe IFR and/or SVFR aircraft
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be wrong - and I'll stand corrected if I am - but my experience of this type of situation invariably results in the cancellation of your IFR clearance (in the US at least). Therefore, you are no longer flying in accordance with IFR and must remain in visual conditions.
That makes sense when you consider that on request of a "visual" you [the pilot] are declaring that you can commence an approach in visual conditions and have your landing runway in sight at all times during that manoeuvre. Furthermore, you may now be off any published instrument routing for the approach (you may be on a left base) and probably won't be given vectors unless there are traffic considerations. But beware of fog or other obscurations that may make visual approaches difficult or impossible in the latter stages!
So, if my memory serves me right (not always) your IFR gets cancelled at the commencement of a visual approach.
One other situation that I have experienced is being offered a visual whilst at some distance from the airport. On acceptance you are given radar vectors to some point where you can state "field in sight" and continue from there.
These are just situations from my personal experience and I don't doubt that different countries have different ideas on this.
Thanks
df1
That makes sense when you consider that on request of a "visual" you [the pilot] are declaring that you can commence an approach in visual conditions and have your landing runway in sight at all times during that manoeuvre. Furthermore, you may now be off any published instrument routing for the approach (you may be on a left base) and probably won't be given vectors unless there are traffic considerations. But beware of fog or other obscurations that may make visual approaches difficult or impossible in the latter stages!
So, if my memory serves me right (not always) your IFR gets cancelled at the commencement of a visual approach.
One other situation that I have experienced is being offered a visual whilst at some distance from the airport. On acceptance you are given radar vectors to some point where you can state "field in sight" and continue from there.
These are just situations from my personal experience and I don't doubt that different countries have different ideas on this.
Thanks
df1
still learning....
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For airline operations in the US, we can request a visual approach or have one offered by ATC. If we accept, it's our responsibility to remain clear of clouds and other traffic. We do NOT have our IFR cancelled, though. We're operating VMC on an IFR flight plan.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have confused myself here so I am digging out the old Jeppessen Instrument/Comm manual which I have no doubt will prove me wrong!!
Maybe you can still operate on an IFR plan but with respect to your IFR clearance it has surely been cancelled/withdrawn. It is my understanding that should you wish to (or require to) re-enter IMC you will need a new clearance. To that end you are bound to visual flight (VFR)?? [US System]
If I appear to be having a "funny turn" and mixing up stuff I should know, please be patient!!
Maybe you can still operate on an IFR plan but with respect to your IFR clearance it has surely been cancelled/withdrawn. It is my understanding that should you wish to (or require to) re-enter IMC you will need a new clearance. To that end you are bound to visual flight (VFR)?? [US System]
If I appear to be having a "funny turn" and mixing up stuff I should know, please be patient!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quid and df1....in the UK a VISUAL approach means that ATC are still responsible for the separation...therefore your IFR plan will not be cancelled.If however you request an approach maintaining VMC....THEN you are responsible for your own separation.
Hover Auto ...it is not unreasonable for a controller to ask if crew have the airfield in sight.I myself will check that the aircraft is VISUAL FOR THE CORRECT AIRFIELD!!(it happens)and we have a procedure to report RUNWAY LIGHTS in sight to ensure that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet as it were.I will also check that they are visual with any high ground and masts.Hope this helps
Hover Auto ...it is not unreasonable for a controller to ask if crew have the airfield in sight.I myself will check that the aircraft is VISUAL FOR THE CORRECT AIRFIELD!!(it happens)and we have a procedure to report RUNWAY LIGHTS in sight to ensure that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet as it were.I will also check that they are visual with any high ground and masts.Hope this helps
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding of it:
In the US there are 2 types of visual approach, one is called the "visual approach" and needs a 1000' ceiling and 3sm vis at the airport - the other is called a "contact approach" and only needs 1sm vis and an airport which must already have an IFR approach procedure. ATC may offer a "visual approach" (indeed, it is up to the pilot to say so early if it isn't acceptable), but the "contact approach" may only be initiated by the pilot. Both procedures are IFR and do not affect the IFR flight plan.
In the UK you may fly a visual approach (ie. leave the IAP profile) if you can maintain visual contact with the surface - you may descend below circling minima if you can see the approach lights and/or the runway (the published circling minima and RVR/Vis apply, but this may be operator specific?). And, as in the US, clearance for a visual approach does not affect your IFR plan.
That's the way I read it, anyway: usual health warnings apply (!).............
In the US there are 2 types of visual approach, one is called the "visual approach" and needs a 1000' ceiling and 3sm vis at the airport - the other is called a "contact approach" and only needs 1sm vis and an airport which must already have an IFR approach procedure. ATC may offer a "visual approach" (indeed, it is up to the pilot to say so early if it isn't acceptable), but the "contact approach" may only be initiated by the pilot. Both procedures are IFR and do not affect the IFR flight plan.
In the UK you may fly a visual approach (ie. leave the IAP profile) if you can maintain visual contact with the surface - you may descend below circling minima if you can see the approach lights and/or the runway (the published circling minima and RVR/Vis apply, but this may be operator specific?). And, as in the US, clearance for a visual approach does not affect your IFR plan.
That's the way I read it, anyway: usual health warnings apply (!).............
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, it is clear that a Visual Approach is part of an IFR plan in respect of FAA procedures.
My earlier statements are therefore misleading so the least I can do is apologise and post a suitable link to clear any ambiguity.
I got a little confused there guys
Cheers
df1
My earlier statements are therefore misleading so the least I can do is apologise and post a suitable link to clear any ambiguity.
I got a little confused there guys
Cheers
df1
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the hope of clarifying this a bit - in the UK, at least - a visual approach (when issued to an aircraft flying IFR) is an IFR clearance. The pilot is expected to fly the remainder of the approach visually and ATC will continue to provide standard separation from other IFR and/or VFR traffic - for this reason ATC may stipulate conditions or ask the pilot's intentions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Visual??
Whilst flying an approach into Dublin, Ireland I heard the controller say to a certain aircraft "only call yourselves visual when you can see the field".
Which made me chuckle.
Got the impression atc were getting tired off this outfit calling visual (when perhaps not!) in order to reduce track distance by some self positioning.
OK call me a cynic!
Which made me chuckle.
Got the impression atc were getting tired off this outfit calling visual (when perhaps not!) in order to reduce track distance by some self positioning.
OK call me a cynic!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify a few points about Visual Approaches in the U.S.;
ATC may clear an aircraft for a Visual Approach if the aircraft has the airport, OR the preceeding aircraft in sight. (plus appropriate WX minimums as previously stated.)
ATC is still responsible for IFR separation, EXCEPT that if the pilot has the preceeding aircraft, or another aircraft in sight, and is instructed to maintain visual separation or follow that other aircraft, then the pilot/crew has assumed separation responsibility for THAT situation only. ATC still assumes responsibility for other IFR aircraft not seen by the crew. Controllers are supposed to "Advise an overtaking aircraft of the distance to the preceding aircraft and speed difference."
ATC may conduct simultaneous visual approaches to parallel runways separated by more than 4300', or converging runways, so long as crew is advised such operations are in effect. (usually thru ATIS.) Note, when simultaneous visual approaches are used, only ONE aircraft need be on a visual, the one 4500' off his/her right wing may be on an ILS...
Simultaneous operations to parallel runways separated by LESS than 4300' are approved with a few more restrictions.
Depending on the operation and type airspace involved, the ONLY radar separation from VFR traffic may be target resolution/500'/visual separation. The Tower may be working VFR pattern traffic not sequenced by approach control.
ATC may clear an aircraft for a Visual Approach if the aircraft has the airport, OR the preceeding aircraft in sight. (plus appropriate WX minimums as previously stated.)
ATC is still responsible for IFR separation, EXCEPT that if the pilot has the preceeding aircraft, or another aircraft in sight, and is instructed to maintain visual separation or follow that other aircraft, then the pilot/crew has assumed separation responsibility for THAT situation only. ATC still assumes responsibility for other IFR aircraft not seen by the crew. Controllers are supposed to "Advise an overtaking aircraft of the distance to the preceding aircraft and speed difference."
ATC may conduct simultaneous visual approaches to parallel runways separated by more than 4300', or converging runways, so long as crew is advised such operations are in effect. (usually thru ATIS.) Note, when simultaneous visual approaches are used, only ONE aircraft need be on a visual, the one 4500' off his/her right wing may be on an ILS...
Simultaneous operations to parallel runways separated by LESS than 4300' are approved with a few more restrictions.
Depending on the operation and type airspace involved, the ONLY radar separation from VFR traffic may be target resolution/500'/visual separation. The Tower may be working VFR pattern traffic not sequenced by approach control.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 100 fills worth.....In todays fast moveing and increasingly dense traffic enviroment it appears most posters here are not totaly clear on this matter?
If this is a true reflection of most pilots and controllers then this is dangerous.
It also appears that these rules are different in various parts of the world.
So I ask...Have we not now talked up a good case for keeping it simple and safe by sticking with our IFR clearances and any radar service provided?
Is it better not to being suckered into an invitation to a DIY approach to a landing and waveing away all our backup service?
I note aircraft opting for an expedited visual straight in, self intercept of part of a procedure,etc etc are still landing at wrong airports, on wrong runways, getting into difficulties on black night approaches and crashing.
Do you not feel you will be poorly placed at the subsequent enquiry if you are still alive and got the visual wrong?
If this is a true reflection of most pilots and controllers then this is dangerous.
It also appears that these rules are different in various parts of the world.
So I ask...Have we not now talked up a good case for keeping it simple and safe by sticking with our IFR clearances and any radar service provided?
Is it better not to being suckered into an invitation to a DIY approach to a landing and waveing away all our backup service?
I note aircraft opting for an expedited visual straight in, self intercept of part of a procedure,etc etc are still landing at wrong airports, on wrong runways, getting into difficulties on black night approaches and crashing.
Do you not feel you will be poorly placed at the subsequent enquiry if you are still alive and got the visual wrong?
Last edited by scanscanscan; 16th Aug 2003 at 18:23.
