Visual Approaches in Transport Jets - are they appropriate?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of definitons for you:
pilot (AIRCRAFT)
noun [C]
a person who flies an aircraft
robot
noun [C]
a machine used to perform jobs automatically, which is controlled by a computer
I know which one I'd rather be.........
Seriously, we get paid to fly aircraft and we should be able to inspire confidence in our passengers. There are times when instrument approaches are safer, even in VMC (high traffic etc), but if you can't fly a simple visual approach and landing in an aircraft you have been checked out on then you shouldn't be permitted to operate it -especially with fare paying passengers on board.
pilot (AIRCRAFT)
noun [C]
a person who flies an aircraft
robot
noun [C]
a machine used to perform jobs automatically, which is controlled by a computer
I know which one I'd rather be.........
Seriously, we get paid to fly aircraft and we should be able to inspire confidence in our passengers. There are times when instrument approaches are safer, even in VMC (high traffic etc), but if you can't fly a simple visual approach and landing in an aircraft you have been checked out on then you shouldn't be permitted to operate it -especially with fare paying passengers on board.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Grand Com f'Ort
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The big problem arises when companies, either overtly or covertly, advise pilots that manual flight is not 'approved of', thus de-skilling their pilot workforce without having established appropriate means of cost reduction in the short term to reflect the lower professional standards. Regulators who don't act in the flying public's best interests are also implicated. 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at your MEL once in a while and see what automatics not working constitute no-go items, better still, see when they don't! That day is not the day to 'wonder' how to fly the a/c to TOC, in the cruise and from TOD without said automatics
Well said PP
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Highbury, London
Age: 66
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One crisp morning back in April, I think, the day that Heathrow got all clogged up on the ground (discussed in another thread), there was a rare 40 minutes or so from about 08:30 when the Director was offering pilots the option of visual approaches. He was enticing them with the phrase "can you see Heathrow...?".
I'm happy to report that fights broke out on flightdecks ("MINE! no MINE!! I'm the Captain dammit!"), cabin crew danced the conga in the aisles and hats were tossed high into the air. Well, maybe I exaggerate. But on 120.4, every pilot sounded very keen to take the opportunity. And that's rather reassuring to an occasional pax like me.
I'm happy to report that fights broke out on flightdecks ("MINE! no MINE!! I'm the Captain dammit!"), cabin crew danced the conga in the aisles and hats were tossed high into the air. Well, maybe I exaggerate. But on 120.4, every pilot sounded very keen to take the opportunity. And that's rather reassuring to an occasional pax like me.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the real world
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In good weather with the conditions for it, there is no excuse for not flying visually. It is legal, economical and safe. If I was on a line check and elected for a radar ILS under conditions which permit a visual I would have some explaining to do. We are paid to fly from A to B in the most economical way possible, if the company asks you why you didn't save a few hundred kilos of fuel, Im afraid "because I don't like visuals" won't really wash.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I'm intrigued that none of you have mentioned Visual Manoeuvring (Circling) approaches, which are routinely conducted by CAT aircraft around the world in much more challenging circumstances than the CAVOK, no traffic situations you've been discussing. If airlines and regulatory authorities are happy to approve scheduled pax flights day and night into airports where - in at least one case I can think of in the UK - the only way to land on the normally into wind runway under IFR involves an IAP downwind to the opposite runway then a visual break to fly a low level circuit, often just under the cloudbase, to land into wind, then where on earth is the problem with visual approaches when you can see for miles?
NS
NS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....under IFR involves an IAP downwind to the opposite runway then a visual break to fly a low level circuit, often just under the cloudbase, to land into wind, then where on earth is the problem with visual approaches when you can see for miles?
Yeah, perhaps these folks should stick to the instrument approach, landing straight in...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: up up up
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth WOULDN'T you do a visual approach? A visual means shorter track miles, less fuel used, improved piloting skills.
The fact that this thread exists is sad indeed. It's the slavish button pushers who have trouble when things go wrong not the ones who can actually fly the aeroplane.
Boeing publish profiles for visual approaches, it's hardly an unusual procedure.
The fact that this thread exists is sad indeed. It's the slavish button pushers who have trouble when things go wrong not the ones who can actually fly the aeroplane.
Boeing publish profiles for visual approaches, it's hardly an unusual procedure.
