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.

FlareArmed :- I'll come back to your question when I go back home where the article is , I remember it mentioned 6 airports JFK and SFO were 2 of them.
abra ;- You mentioned a good point,thank you.

I used to fly a lot of visual approaches into airfields all around the world.

Now there is so much pressure from the company to stay IFR and fully automatic that most people I fly with are reluctant to go visual, even when it would make the job easier.

At the back of most peoples' minds is the 'friendly' chat with the flight manager: "So, why did you do a visual approach when an instrument one was available?" (not that this has ever stopped me, but...)

As has been pointed out many times in this thread, we (pilots) are slowly but surely losing the skillset required for safe, efficient visual approaches. If my opposite number is uncomfortable with the idea of a visual, then an instrument approach is what we shall do. The last thing I want to happen is "Look at me! aren't I good at this!" with the other guy on the edge of their seat.

From a training point of view, we don't teach visual flying anymore. Even circuits are done ZFT in the sim, and you can only see the runway for about 50% of the time, like circling approaches (don't get me started).

It's getting to the point where guys are having panic attacks if presented with a view of a runway which is not lined up in front of them with the requisite number of red and white lights (plus a LOC & G/S, of course)

I don't blame the individuals - how can you - but simply the way flying (esp. longhaul) is going these days.

Suggestions on a postcard.

Abra,

>>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.<<

You are mistaken, if you are on a visual approach, and for some reason have to go around you are still considered as an active IFR aircraft.

At a towered airport the control tower will issue instructions, these can be either a heading and a altitude to go back to the radar approach control for resequencing, or to enter the local traffic pattern, either way you are still on an IFR Flight Plan.

At a non towered airport, I must still protect the airspace around that airport until you cancel your IFR flight plan. IFR pilots for some reason think that since they are on an IFR flight plan that they are number one to the runway, this thinking is wrong, and dangerous. You must take in consideration any local traffic.

As for having thrown away your IFR alternate on a visual approach, the only reason for your need for the alternate is if the runway/s at your airport of intended landing closed unexpectedly, again all you would have to do is contact ATC and notify us of the problem.

Mike
NATCA FWA

Mike
Can you provide a reference in the 7110.65 to the pilot having an IFR clearance

What you say is all good and well, but protecting airspace applies to you and not the pilot who may need an IFR clearance very shortly after missing the approach. There is no published procedures sitting in front of me to follow on a visual. Its not a matter of simply calling back as you infer. Imagine lost comm late at night in Bozeman Montana and going missed. A very busy freq at ORD, a stuck mic at LAX, etc. With a missed approach procedure I simply fly that. I am not really worried about ATC as I know if I was cleared for the approach, I was also cleared for the missed. I dont have that luxery on a visual.

West Coast,

7110.65 Chapter 7, section 4 Approaches 7-4-1

Last Sentence " An aircraft unable to complete a visual approach shall be handled as any go-around and appropriate separation must be provided.

Note: 7-4-2 that dictates weather minimums required in order for us to vector you for a visual approach..

7-4-3 a. Controllers may initiate, or pilots may request, a visual approach even when an aircraft is being vectored for an instrument approach and the pilot subsequently reports:

1. The airport or the runway in sight at airports with operating control towers.

2. The airport in sight at airports without a control tower.

In order for me to clear you for a visual approach "YOU MUST HAVE THE AIRPORT OR RUNWAY IN SIGHT".

The only reason that you may go missed is for some unforseen problem that prevents you from landing, ex. , mechanical problem with your aircraft, anmimals on runway, debris on runway, vechicles on the runway, etc.

Again at non towered airports I'm going to protect the airspace around that airport until you cancel your IFR. To me this means that at my satelites I'm protecting 3000 and below, just in case. It should be noted that all my missed approach altitudes are 3000, I'm protecting the airspace around that airport (5 mile radius), which if you miss should give you ample opportunity to re-establish communication.

We can play what if all day long, but depending on radar coverage I will see you miss long before you call me. Other airports with high MVA's and poor radar coverage present a larger problem, the few airports like this that I know of the controllers work aircraft in and out of them using the ONE IN, ONE OUT Rule. They will not have two aircraft wondering around at the same time, they will protect that airspace until either they have established radar and comm, or the pilot cancels.


What is important is that, IF you as a pilot think that there is a chance that you may go missed approach then you should be asking ATC for additional instructions.

Communciation is the key!

Mike
NATCA FWA

Mike
I appreciate what you are saying but a visual approach doesn't have the same guarantees of an instrument approach, namely a missed approach segment. Long prior to the top of descent the approach along with the missed segment is briefed and both pilots know what is going to happen should we go around. Its loaded in the FMS and is mentally flown to ensure no gotchas such as speed restrictions, etc. You say communications is the key. Actually comm is the third step to safely flying the aircraft. Aviate, navigate and communicate in that order. That is if I can communicate with you, lost comm, stuck mic, coverage, etc. Having a published missed procedure allows the order to remain in the proper order. My last go around was at LAX below the persistant marine layer. If we had been on a visual approach clearance (and they were doing visuals, we were on the ILS) we would have now been inversing the order, trying to ensure an IFR clearance via the controller, the other choice would be a non standard profile climb out as we attempt to stay VFR. This is not consistant with safely flying the aircraft.

What you mention are controller responsibilities. Ensuring seperation is a beautiful thing, but I am also worried about other functions of remaining safe also.
I fly visuals all the time, its the preferred method in my opinion. It does however come with some question marks depending on wx, terrain, radio coverage and volume of traffic.

Johnman
Its not just international crews, its domestic crews also. San Fran is the first one that comes to mind with the SOIA approaches, believe Newark also.

West Coast,

I understand your concerns, but the way we are taught when a pilot reports the airport/runway in sight and is cleared for a visual approach then we expect the pilot to proceed directly to the runway/airport and land.

As stated previously at a towered airport the controllers will issue appropriate instructions in the event a go around is issued or the pilot for some reason elects to miss, so a published procedure isn't required.

If you have some spare time, you can always stop in and talk with the controllers at LAX or the SoCal Tracon and discuss your concerns, or email our National Safety Officer http://www.natca.org

Mike
NATCA FWA

Mike

I could be cleared for the inverted LDA back course circle to land side step approach and I expect to land out of it. That doesn't mean I will every time. For those few times I want a clear plan in place prior to commencing the approach as to what I am going to do. A visual approach in questionable wx doesn't provide me with the guarantees I look for. As such I dont accept visuals if wx is a factor.

What about when I am at a non controlled airport? I assure you that I am not going to talk to you first to get an IFR clearance back in to the goop and let the aircraft sink twords terrain or obstructions. The handbook says I will be handled as a go around. It mentions nothing about receiving the same type of handling as a missed approach aircraft. Being told to turn left downwind in a jet, or worse the dreaded "standby" in questionable conditions by a VFR tower as he attempts to work out something with the appch/departure guy/center is not the same as flying a published missed approach. Its already a high stress moment minus someone on the ground developing a plan while I am flying a now light aircraft on a manuever that I do at best(or worst) 4 to 5 times a year.
Like I said, the visual is a great tool under certain conditions, just not all the times its legal to use.

I'm afraid there is nothing you can say that will convince me that a visual approach has all the guarantees of an instrument approach. This comes from years of flying myself and from the mentoring of many other senior pilots who have seen the same situations.

Hi Johnman,

Some issues that could be implemented into "training of pilots":

Sometimes I have the feeling that pilots think that they have to accept ATC clearances or ATC "wishes".

Pilots are responsible for their A/C and no one else.

A pilot can gladly accept a visual approach, a high speed approach, an expedite climb or descent.

BUT, you don't have to do what ATC asks you to do if it merely suits them.

By all means, an ATC clearance out of EGLL certainly means to strictly follow the clearance. But if you are asked to fly 180kts to 6 DME and you are able to, but it's going to lead to a destabilised approach, then the onus is on the pilots not to accept that clearance.

Or just because the ATC controller offers a visual approach, it certainly doesn't mean that you are obliged to rush into it (especially if not briefed beforehand). If you are prepared to accept a visual and there is a likelihood that you'll get it, then brief the IMC approach procedure AND the visual, so that you've got the option later.

Never start an approach that is not briefed with where you want to be at what ALT, at what SPD, and with which configuration.

Pilots are responsible to make sure their A/C is maintained within a safe "cocoon" with a large safety margin.

If in doubt, carry out a missed approach AND analyse the reason for the missed approach and only then return for landing or divert.

You are in control of your A/C, not ATC. They are a service and there to provide exactly that, but you say what you want.

The best option is if pilots and ATC work as a team. That's when traffic volumes can be increased phenominally:p .

West Coast,

I would have no problem with when you check onto my frequency with the ATIS, and I tell you to expect vectors to the visual approach telling me that you would rather have the instrument approach, and I'm positive that my fellow controllers wouldn't have a problem either. By telling us in advanced that you prefer the instrument approach allows us to plan better how to fit you into the sequence.

To be honest I have pilots ask me on a daily basis can I have the instrument approach. FWA has a lot of general aviation, corporate, military, occasional airlines that fly into Fort Wayne to do practice approaches. We sequence them in with all our traffic doing visual approaches or other instrument approaches all the time, without any problems. These aircraft doing practice approaches, circling approaches, arcs, and full procedure approaches, as well as being vectored for approaches. We have a large mix of aircraft types and sizes, so it does present some challenges (which I throughly enjoy), and this provides excellant training opportunities to our developmental controllers.

Again, at non towered airports the rare missed approach when doing a visual approach does present a procedural problem for the pilot, but again if you want the instrument approach then just ask for it on initial contact, or if you think you might miss, ask for instructions prior to being switched over to the CTAF.

Mike
NATCA FWA

"Safe, Orderly, Expeditious" in that order. Whilst visual approaches might be expeditious, there is potential for disorder and breaches of safety if a pilot is forced into a visual approach he isn't prepared for. It is one thing to suggest a visual approach. It is another thing to clear an aircraft for a visual approach that wasn't requested. These destabilised approaches and associated go-arounds that the others are talking about will take away all your efficiency and then some. Of course, if they miss the airport completely and bend the aircraft landing on a nearby highway, or smacking into a hill at night, there will be a lot of paperwork to say the least.

There are some things that ATC can suggest to pilots, but there are some things that are best left for pilots to request.

I'm curious to know how you expect a pilot to maintain terrain clearance when the controller is positioning his aircraft all over the sky. Where I work, I am responsible for terrain clearance when I issue a descent clearance based on the terrain map, or when I commence vectoring. In either instance, I must make it clear to the pilot when I am handing that responsibility back to him. Having said that, if I had you on a heading that you thought was pointing you directly at a big lump of rock, I wouldn't be offended if you asked where I was planning to vector you and/or could I confirm Radar Terrain.

FlareArmed
The special approach procedures are to be introduced at six US international airports to increase runway utilization. A dedicated air traffic controller monitors these approaches with a precision runway monitor (PRM). Airports affected will be KJFK, KSFO KPHL, KSTL, KCLE and KMSP. There are two types of approaches depending on how close the parallel runways are .All pilots must be trained for these approaches.
square leg
thanks for the good points.

Some additional commentary from another U.S. Controller::)

The 7110.65 says that the reported ceiling must be 500' above my Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) to initiate a vector for a visual approach. That rule would practically guarantee at least a 2000' ceiling at any airport advertising visual approaches. In Mountainous areas, more likely 2500' or more. We can authorise a VA if pilot requests down to basic VFR, 1000' X 3 mi, but no controller should be using those minima for initiating a VA. Therefore, a go-around should most often be a non-event. Either left/right closed traffic to a landing if traffic no factor, OR if traffic is a factor requiring re-sequence, then an IFR altitude and vector, followed by hand-off back to the approach controller.

*I* do not vector for a VA, unless such approaches are either advertised on ATIS as being in use, or I tell the crew to expect a VA some distance from the field. I have no problem whatsoever with a crew that tells me promptly they wish vectors for the ILS. In fact, it's common late at night when the crew (and everyone else) is tired. What I have a problem with is the more "crude" method of refusing to report the airport or preceeding aircraft in sight. That's because I need to plan my sequence and spacings on final, and a VA has different requirements from an ILS. In fact, there have been numerous times I've had to refuse an ILS approach clearance at the "last minute" because it was then too late to establish a proper sequence and intercept. Those instances led to the aircraft being broken out, and vectored some 20 miles or so to the back of the line. It's not "punishment" of any sort, it's that I must meet certain requirements myself.

I certainly recognise that VAs are likely un-comfortable for crews not familiar with my airport and surrounding area. I hope YOU understand that the majority of the pilots I work with have no problems with VAs, and in fact request them. (Sometimes from 30 miles out!;) )

Yankee_Doodle_Floppy_Disk


It is very simple, if you are on an IFR flight plan ONLY the pilot can request to go VFR it can not be imposed on him by ATC.

The only person on earth that can prevent the aircraft from flying into terrain is the pilot. Regulations recognize this and have put the final responsibility with the pilot and not ATC. Crews have the maps with all terrain info in front of their nose. ATC has to monitor but do not have the final responsibility.

Since ATC have a complete picture of all aircraft and not the pilot, ATC is responsible for separation.

It is that simple.

In practical terms both pilots and ATC monitor each other as much as possible but when an incident gets into the courts the rules apply.

Some ATC chaps pick you up and state "radar vectoring; intention visual approach" and that's fine with me since I will be prepared or I can refuse at an early stage.

Cap 56

Who said anything about VFR??

I think you have misunderstood me. I am not advocating any form of flight by visual reference being imposed on pilots. I am firmly in the group that advocates awaiting the pilot request and only a subtle hint, such as "REPORT FLIGHT CONDITIONS" or "IF NOT VISUAL BY ONE-FIVE MILES EXPECT VECTORS FOR [name of approach]..."


As far as terrain clearance goes, you might be correct that ultimately the manipulation of the controls by the pilot will be the thing that prevents a collision with terrain. However if I vector an aircraft into a hill, people will want to know what I was trying to achieve. I don't know which maps you use, but the ones in use for IFR in New Zealand have plenty of info about terrain when following tracks and procedures, but do they have all the terrain info when being vectored off track? You might be able to pick up a few clues that the controller has you pointed at a big lump of rock, but he may have turned you enough to disorient you. Or you might be a bit busy with other aspects of the flight to try and interpolate your position relative to the various tracks surrounding you.

When it ends up in court, then the pilot will be lucky to be able to attend. I don't think the judge would let me off with the argument that it is the pilots responsibility. I know my employers wouldn't.

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?


Well said Ralph and its the difference between operating and flying. Thank god i work for an airline that has flying pilots.

whatunion
 

Just to bring us back to the original post on this thread, the ability of pilots to conduct a visual approach was not really in question, but some busy airports will require additional training/exposure because of conditions peculiar to those airports. I can think of several that fall into that category, I am sure you can too?

yes, you are quite right but thinking about it there are some who would rather do an ILS than a visual because, i believe, the fear of cocking up.

Push button pilots?
 

Fully agree with what whatunion says...

Personally I encourage my F/O's in doing a visual approach, and didn't we all cock-up? Isn't that part of a learning process?
Although it rarely happens, as soon as I'm not comfortable with what my F/O is doing, I will suggest him to take appropriate action, resulting in a nice stabilized visual, and a good experience for the F/O.

I know that modern aircraft are designed to be flown automatically, but I strongly disagree with people whe rarely fly a raw data or visual approach when conditions are good for it. In the end, you might end up in an emergency where you have to fly a raw data or visual where the conditions are less than favourable, and that's not the time to start thinking about how exactly you used to fly these machines in the old days.

So for me, as much 'basic' flying as possible if conditions are ok for it: low ATC load, not a lot of traffic around, weather well above Cat1, no vicious terrain around, ... and those conditions happen quite a lot, even in the UK.

Yep - I am pretty much in agreance with FlyingTuur, whatunion, etc.
The visual approach is a skill that needs working on. As has already been pointed out - it is the most basic of flying skills, and I believe everybody should be able to fly their aircraft from A to B without having to rely on ATC to hold their hands.
There are still many places in the world where the demanding skill of the circling (visual) approach is still required, and it is therefore a very necessary tool to have in your toolbag. I cannot comprehend how on earth anybody can possibly expect to carry one out safely if they can't even position and configure their aircraft for a basic straight-in visual in benign conditions.
I too encourage the practice of a visual approach from my effohs - they are fooling themselves if they think they can live their professional lives without gaining this skill.
A big part of it is judging when more track miles are required, and then requesting it from ATC if necessary.:ok: