Thank you BlueEagle :- these kinds of topics reflects attitudes , and ideas of pilots from different backgrounds. It is well understood that every pilot can carry out a visual approach to a landing.

Scenario (actual event)

B767, Dubai, night, Cavok, 38C.

Vectored by approach for downwind leg, alt 3000. abeam DXB at 3-4dme. Number 1 aircraft being vectored onto ILS at 13 miles. Captain visual with airfield through F/o DV window, calls for F/o to call visual with airfield and request self position to finals as number one with aircraft on ILS visual as well. ATC reply affirmative, visual approach to finals, now number one call tower 1xx.xx . Starting the turn, boards out, flaps out, gear down, boards in, stable speed in the turn, visual lost by capt in the intial turn but kept in sight by f/o, flaps running out to full as we turn finals at 1.5 miles. Stable approach, slightly high, 10knts above approach speed. Perfectly executed landing and roll out.

As this was reasonably quiet for this airport, would you as ATCO's approve such a visual approach again, or would you insist on continuing vectoring for an ILS approach. My point here was that the change of approach was quick, a little surprising, and quite enjoyable to watch the captain think very quickly and handle the aircraft in quite an unusual manner. Good airmanship or showboating.

FWIW, the UK book (Manual of Air Traffic Services Part 1) saysThis is a bit ambiguous because it doesn't say who should request the visual approach - personally, I will always wait for the pilot to ask but there are plenty of ways to let the pilot know that a request would be approved.

What an interesting thread...how depressing that so few pilots feel confident in their own or their F/Os ability to transition quickly to an efficient visual approach. I agree though that 'they' are training 'it' out of us.

I feel blessed that my first several jets were flown in environments that positively encouraged visual approaches and we were trained by management pilots who felt strongly that a well flown visual appraoch was a/. a thing of beauty b/. a big time saver and c/. often required 'cause the navaids were all broken:}

But now I find myself flying 767s and my company's attitude to visual approaches seems...well we have one in the training but I call it the 'visual non precision approach' because it bares little resemblance to a traditional visual approach. Many of you will have seen it..downwind at xxxx Vref 30+40/flap 5, abeam threshold timing blah blah.

I'll have to pick my mark but think I'll keep my hand in soon:ok:

Chuck.

As a matter ofinterest what are your SOPS in regards to visuals?

I know the JAR ops says in sight of the ground and all that.

But the old system said in sight of the touchdown point. We still run the in sight of the touchdown point. Which seems reasonable enough.

MJ

Slingsby,

What you described is not uncommon, normally my technique is to advise the pilot that if they get the airport in sight we can switch to the visual approach (traffic permitting). As someone else mentioned, if we are advertising the visual approach I have absolutely no problem with a pilot requesting an instrument approach, especially if the final has the sun in their eyes making seeing the runway challanging.

Remember, SAFETY FIRST!

Mike
NATCA FWA

I have seen nothing in the SOPs that suggest visual approach requirements are stricter than JAR Ops. The company culture seems to be 'don't do em'. An example is another SFO (from the same background as I) recently turned off the automatics as opposed to button pushing at low level and completed a visual right base and landing rather than an ILS (in CAVOK) and was complemented by the Captain...as if what he did was quite unusual. He just figured it was a normal approach and was quite surprised at the reaction. Along the lines of the DXB example earlier in the thread.

I'm not suggesting visuals in marginal VMC or busy airspace, LHR for example, but there are plenty of opportunities in our operation to do them both at our home base, it's virtually our own private field, and various destos on our network.

Surely the ability to eyeball an approach, backed up with a rough idea of track miles to run & altitude/speed to lose is a fundamental skill set all pilots need to know?

Chuck.

It is always nice to see people's reactions to a certain idea, how some persons assume things , and how some completely forget about the main issue. Safety is first in aviation , we should always use all available resources and choose the best options at the time, the best option is the safest option, sometimes the only way to land an airplane is by a visual or a circling approach , so every pilot should be able to carry that perfectly and precisly,these days these approaches are included in recurrent training.Planning is the name of the game , when you go to a new destination you should study all options real well in order to eliminate the element of surprise, a good briefing will be a must before any approach . Don't push your luck for the sake of saving minutes or gallons of fuel , keep your crewmembers in the picture otherwise you'll be on your own and then you'll start coming up with excuses no body believes in.Stay ahead of the airplane at all times and never hesitate to go around if you are not stabilized,everyone knows his limits better than the others ,so respect those limits and stay away from troubles.Safe flights to you all and many happy landings.