Visual Approaches
 

Visual Approaches are more common at international airports in the States more than anywhere else ,Canarsie at JFK viual approaches at SFO etc. If you are familiar that is O.k , but after along flight It is not fun at all , especially with wide body aircrafts. all of us saw examples of less than steady safe approaches.Vectors for visual are not as precise and normally on the high side. Do you think it is worth it to take special training for these approaches as they are different from the standard visual approaches or should these airports follow what other airports like LHR and ORY etc, for better safety.

Many airlines have special training for these airports that have 'unusual' visual approach procedures.
Having said this...you generally find the end of the landing runway at the termination of the specified instrument approach, and if you are not comfortable with the visual, request (and indeed, insist) on the instrument approach procedure.

411A thanks , Can you give examples to the training done by other airlines , Is it carried out in the simulator or by a briefing on the screen , did you take or give such a training and what are your comments . It might not always possible to do whatever you think is best . Pilots Like challenges or at least they reflect this attitude but at times these challenges are combined with weather conditions and landmarks that are not familiar to a new comer. The pressure of heavy traffic is solved by these procedures , which is not the case for example at LHR where you feel a higher degree of safety .

Johnman,

If being given a visual approach is a problem then on Initial contact with the approach control tell them that you want vectors to the instrument approach. Problem solved!


Safety is a two way street, and communciation is the most important componet.

Mike
NATCA FWA

FWA NATCA , Thank you , you are right , I feel more communication is needed to address this issue . I will vote against visual approaches at international airports as I've seen airplanes landing at wrong airports in the past , if that happened then worse things could happen .

Johnman,

Generally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with visual approaches, provided the visibility/cloud cover is such that the airport can be clearly seen in a reasonable time for the required maneuvering to be accomplished.
In most cases where aircraft have landed at the wrong airport, it is with crews that have operated to the destination many times and are trying to cut corners to save time, or for their own perceived 'operational' reasons.

On these occasions, haste makes waste...and sometimes severe embarrassment.:ooh: :sad:

The chief pilot/fleet manager is seldom in agreement...after the fact.:uhoh:

All is going automated these days and flying skills of airline pilots are not practiced as much as before except at destinations where there is lack of approach radar , non prec. approaches or during simulator checks. visual approaches are nice and nothing wrong with them as 411A, myself and most pilots think,but not at the heavy traffic areas where monitoring and vectoring should be extremely precise. The fact that I was not impressed with few visual approaches is the reason for this topic.

My God,what are we coming to when so called professional pilots, flying transport aircraft, full of trusting passengers, don't feel confident they can conduct a visual approach?

In the London area ATC assumes that a/c will always fly an instrument approach unless the crew says otherwise. If the weather is good (rare in the UK!) and traffic permits ATC may ask pilots if they wish to make a visual approach - some will, some won't but there is no onus on the crew to make such an approach following the offer.

While airlines will 'train' for a standard visual circuit, in real life it is extremely rare to see such an animal. Most visuals require a lot of effort in planning as many airports impose different 'constraints' on ground tracks or altitudes for these, and it would not be economic for airlines to 'train' for too many specific airfields. Perhaps the commonest event, 'joining downwind', is rarely conducted iaw the 'standard base training' circuit, since it would take far too long to fly!

As 'ralph' says, it is a sad day if the skill 'disappears', and one hopes that Captains will always help and encourage their F/Os to fly varying visual circuits when conditions permit. If they do not, then the 'Captains of the future' will not have the skill.

Safety is everyones responsibility,pointing areas where we need to be more carefull should not be taken negatively and we all should come up with positive ideas to improve training , procedures and communication . there are great pilots out there flying with outstanding safety record and they deserve everyones trust and respect. I wish you all Safe flights.

There is an article in one of the aviation magazines stating that special approach procedures at six US international airports are to be inroduced to increase runway utilisation ,and foreign crews will not be able to land there unless they complete a prescribed training program.

My worst experiences with visual approaches have been in Australia, where late in the descent (20 track miles or so) the controller, unprompted often at night suddenly says " ....cleared visual approach". ok the vis may be good etc., but on at least 4 or 5 occasions with my F/O flying, he has been sucked into this and simply points at the runway, suddenly reducing track miles.The result? twice Ive had to take control and do an orbit, the other times an unstable, closely monitored, and pressured approach has resulted, all reducing safety margins by making it harder to properly monitor the whole situation. why do they do this?

Good point Prayboy , I guess that is the case in many places, at night and at areas where is more than one airport or runways there has been incidents of landing at the wrong place.I don't personally recommend an orbit on final as it caused accidents in the past. It is always cheaber to carry out a missed approach in case the pilot can't make the approach with nomal maneuvering,normal rate of descent and normal speeds to land at the normal touch down point.

My personal criteria for accepting a visual approach are to make sure that the workload does not get to high.


To put it in more practical terms, I will not accept a visual approach when the profile requires the autopilot to be disconnected at a stage where the cabin crew is not seated/secure and the approach checklist finished.

In other words the only thing remaining is to fly the aircraft and go trough the landing checklist and fatigue is no factor.

prayboy

I don't know the rules across the ditch, but here in NZ, a visual approach must be requested by the pilot.

Perhaps you should phone after landing and point out the hazard that is being created.

If you are concerned that to proceed in accordance with the clearance is too risky, the phrase "UNABLE TO COMPLY" might be appropriate.

The first responsibility of ATC is to separate the ACFT.

The second is to do this as efficiently as possible.

Visual approaches are part of that goal, hence they can suggest it.

Obstacle clearance remains the responsability of the pilot even when radar vectored.

It is the responsability of the pilot to maneuver the AC safely while conducting a visual approach. If your FO just points towards the field and a rushed approach ensues isn't this a training issue? if this happens regularly should it not be included in the app brief? I cannot see how you can blame ATC for a pilot missjudging track miles while he is choosing his own track!

This must be the most basic of all aviation skills. To see a suitable airfiled and be able to visualy land the AC in a safe and orderly maner.

Johnman,

Which US airports will have the special approach procedures requiring training?

Don't forget that in the States,if you accept a visual approach and have to go around,the proceedure you follow is a visual one and not the standard missed approach.You have also thrown away your ATC IFR flight plan alternate.