Visual Approaches in Transport Jets - are they appropriate?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Zealand
Age: 60
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual Approaches in Transport Jets - are they appropriate?
Hello All,
Here at PB, we are now operating the 737-800 domestically within New Zealand. We are doing 5 sector days and there is of course pressure to meet OTP etc. There is an established practice within NZ of conducting visual approaches in pax carrying jet transports.
I would like to ask your opinions on the safety of conducting visual approaches.
What do you feel the benefit of a visual approach v. a full Instrument Approach would be and does it justify teh additional risks - what do you think those risks are?
Rgds,
Brad Marsh
Here at PB, we are now operating the 737-800 domestically within New Zealand. We are doing 5 sector days and there is of course pressure to meet OTP etc. There is an established practice within NZ of conducting visual approaches in pax carrying jet transports.
I would like to ask your opinions on the safety of conducting visual approaches.
What do you feel the benefit of a visual approach v. a full Instrument Approach would be and does it justify teh additional risks - what do you think those risks are?
Rgds,
Brad Marsh
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must be kidding. Certainly visual appraoches can be conducted safely in good weather and with minimal traffic congestion. Having said that you might be surprised at how many pilots have difficulty when turned lose on their own to get the airplane on the ground safely.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Zealand
Age: 60
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<QUOTE>
Having said that you might be surprised at how many pilots have difficulty when turned lose on their own to get the airplane on the ground safely.
<UNQUOTE>
That is why I ask the question
Anyone can fly a visual approach .. it is how we start our flying of course and I love doing them in my Pitts.
My point is that does the shorter track distance, perhaps increased number of runway movements (although I think Heathrow and others do pretty well anyway) and shorter flight times warrant discarding all we have learned about approach and landing accident prevention (primarily through use of Constant Descent, Runway Aligned Approaches = ILS or perhaps VNAV for anyone on a modern machine)
This is a question of cost benefit I guess. Here in NZ a lot of guys arriving at Auckland for RWY23L ask for a Visual App and are cleared for same but must be established on final inside 3DME. The VOR/DME is pretty close to the threshold. I see a lot of guys turn through final, use high descent rates etc - it ain't pretty and I ask - what's the point?
Having said that you might be surprised at how many pilots have difficulty when turned lose on their own to get the airplane on the ground safely.
<UNQUOTE>
That is why I ask the question
Anyone can fly a visual approach .. it is how we start our flying of course and I love doing them in my Pitts.
My point is that does the shorter track distance, perhaps increased number of runway movements (although I think Heathrow and others do pretty well anyway) and shorter flight times warrant discarding all we have learned about approach and landing accident prevention (primarily through use of Constant Descent, Runway Aligned Approaches = ILS or perhaps VNAV for anyone on a modern machine)
This is a question of cost benefit I guess. Here in NZ a lot of guys arriving at Auckland for RWY23L ask for a Visual App and are cleared for same but must be established on final inside 3DME. The VOR/DME is pretty close to the threshold. I see a lot of guys turn through final, use high descent rates etc - it ain't pretty and I ask - what's the point?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
In a word "yes"
Visuals into NZAA, WLG, and CH are not particularly risky, and in a smaller jet like a 737-800 far more workable...as long as the traffic/weather permits (so pretty much most days!).
As long as you plan your visual descent point, know the terrain, and are stable by 1000' AAL..500' worst case, its all gravy
FWIW..I reckon there isn't enough emphasis placed on the visual approach these days
Visuals into NZAA, WLG, and CH are not particularly risky, and in a smaller jet like a 737-800 far more workable...as long as the traffic/weather permits (so pretty much most days!).
As long as you plan your visual descent point, know the terrain, and are stable by 1000' AAL..500' worst case, its all gravy
FWIW..I reckon there isn't enough emphasis placed on the visual approach these days
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in Europe, flying the A320/A321, we regularly go to "small" airports at holiday destinations where there's no radar but in the summer, 95% of the time it's CAVOK - we do visual approaches: they are taught and practiced in the sim regularly and just require us to stable by 500'aal, otherwise it's a mandatory go-around - never presented any problems.
I aso mixed fleet fly on the A330 as well and we do them on that in the Caribbean!
I aso mixed fleet fly on the A330 as well and we do them on that in the Caribbean!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 42
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How/why would a visual approach be dangerous? Only if you are bad at flying visual approaches, same could be said of non-prec approaches too surely.
At my base airport when a certain runway is in use I will generally knock off the automatics (A320), use the bird and hand fly a visual circuit from early downwind (subject to weather, which is 95% clear skies, calmish wind). This means I probably hand fly a visual approach A320 at least once a week.
I mostly keep autothrust in which increases safety I think.
The risks IMHO are 1) people who never fly them! 2) Not watching airspeed. 3) Not watching bank angle 4)Misjudging rate of descent on base/final and turn to final 5)Misjudging vertical profile overall. 6) Flying in bad viz/Wx in general 7) Flying in heavy traffic 8) Flying with tricky terrain.
The main benefit is surely going to be reduced time/fuel burn.
The IVSI is your friend!! The best hint I was given, which I still use, is just keep my left nut on the centre-line on approach. It works a treat.
At my base airport when a certain runway is in use I will generally knock off the automatics (A320), use the bird and hand fly a visual circuit from early downwind (subject to weather, which is 95% clear skies, calmish wind). This means I probably hand fly a visual approach A320 at least once a week.
I mostly keep autothrust in which increases safety I think.
The risks IMHO are 1) people who never fly them! 2) Not watching airspeed. 3) Not watching bank angle 4)Misjudging rate of descent on base/final and turn to final 5)Misjudging vertical profile overall. 6) Flying in bad viz/Wx in general 7) Flying in heavy traffic 8) Flying with tricky terrain.
The main benefit is surely going to be reduced time/fuel burn.
The IVSI is your friend!! The best hint I was given, which I still use, is just keep my left nut on the centre-line on approach. It works a treat.
Yeh, Brad.
Nothing like positioning high downwind over the sea at Paphos and disengaging all the automatics.
Follow this with a nice curved approach to intercept at about 3 miles and stabilise for 5-600ft.
Saves stacks of time and the passengers apparently love it 'cos they can see the airport most of the time.
Keeps the handling skills up to speed as well. Nothing wrong with it at all.
Doesn't anybody actually fly any more ?
Nothing like positioning high downwind over the sea at Paphos and disengaging all the automatics.
Follow this with a nice curved approach to intercept at about 3 miles and stabilise for 5-600ft.
Saves stacks of time and the passengers apparently love it 'cos they can see the airport most of the time.
Keeps the handling skills up to speed as well. Nothing wrong with it at all.
Doesn't anybody actually fly any more ?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: worldwide
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
manually airbus flying
Flying an airbus manually that sounds funny to me but keeping the A/T ON on top of it ..THAT makes me laugh..
Many times below RVSMs A/P off,FDs OFF and for sure A/T off....routing use progress page for lateral deviation check and then when vectored the old good way:-)
Oh yes sorry 737 ng;-)
Many times below RVSMs A/P off,FDs OFF and for sure A/T off....routing use progress page for lateral deviation check and then when vectored the old good way:-)
Oh yes sorry 737 ng;-)
V/Apps:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Namibia
Age: 38
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If CAVOK, and traffic permits, pilots really don't want to go over the boring ILS procedure, which takes longer time = more fuel.
if good condition, any pilot will ask for visual, which is not problem at all.
if good condition, any pilot will ask for visual, which is not problem at all.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Around the world.
Age: 42
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyer 75: Well, I do fly it FDs/AP/AT off regularly and that is just thanks to a chief pilot that believes in the basics - certainly many UK airlines have banned flying in this manner, I know autothrust off would get me sacked at many airlines in the world (Airbus).
It should surely never be a competition to who can knock the most autos off. It should surely be only a challenge getting the aircraft most expeditiously, most fuel efficiently and above all else most safely onto the runway - and if it helps keep your raw skills up, then that is a bonus.
Why the hell do we need a lat/vert deviation check for a visual approach! (with predictable caveat).
Certainly autothrust off is very easy in average weather so long as you know you pitch/power settings - and I hope even those Airbus pilots know the figures
It should surely never be a competition to who can knock the most autos off. It should surely be only a challenge getting the aircraft most expeditiously, most fuel efficiently and above all else most safely onto the runway - and if it helps keep your raw skills up, then that is a bonus.
Why the hell do we need a lat/vert deviation check for a visual approach! (with predictable caveat).
Certainly autothrust off is very easy in average weather so long as you know you pitch/power settings - and I hope even those Airbus pilots know the figures
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the problem flyer - yes, we also take out all the automatics, including the A/THR at times and fly visually using raw data : in fact in our company we practice manual handling skills in the sim for about an hour once a year; in addition to the standard LPC/OPC.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEV
I think depend on quite factors:
I usually fly in CAVOK airports with schedule flights carrying passengers.I think in Ryanair Vissual approaches are forbidden so in this case I think is a good election.
In my case I usually fly into Canaries, I know all airports very well so I often make a visual approach when the weather is good. But for other hand if I go to unknown airport and the weather is ok, I would prefer radar vectors to intercept the final leg.
Cheers!
I usually fly in CAVOK airports with schedule flights carrying passengers.I think in Ryanair Vissual approaches are forbidden so in this case I think is a good election.
In my case I usually fly into Canaries, I know all airports very well so I often make a visual approach when the weather is good. But for other hand if I go to unknown airport and the weather is ok, I would prefer radar vectors to intercept the final leg.
Cheers!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Zealand
Age: 60
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks All for your replies.
If we might just have a look at:
<QUOTE>
The risks IMHO are 1) people who never fly them! 2) Not watching airspeed. 3) Not watching bank angle 4)Misjudging rate of descent on base/final and turn to final 5)Misjudging vertical profile overall. 6) Flying in bad viz/Wx in general 7) Flying in heavy traffic 8) Flying with tricky terrain.
The main benefit is surely going to be reduced time/fuel burn.
<UNQUOTE>
Each of these are clear risk factors and are identified in the FSF ALAR (Flight Safety Foundation Approach and Landing Accident Reduction) project. Each of these risk factors is easily mitigated by flying a Terminal Approach Radar monitored autocoupled ILS or at worst a VNAV straight-in approach.
The benefit of reduced time/fuel needs to be assayed against the increase risk of an unstabilised approach and resultant Go Around. There are also question about designing SOPs for a Visual Approach .. what are the standard calls, what are the trigger points for gear/flap, how do we tell when the guy flying it needs some support etc?
What I am getting at is that as professional aviators charged with a lot of responsibility we are expected to provide maximum affordable safety at all times and I, personally, am not convinced of the cost benefit of visual approaches, particularly non-runway-aligned when there is a proven safer alternative available for the sake of a few SOPs, briefing and setup of the cockpit for an Instrument Approach.
The argument of maintaining the ability to hand fly a no FD A/T visual approach for the vanishingly small chance of a total EFIS failure seems, to me, false economy.
My company forbids turning the FD off under normal operations unless rearming it when visual on a non precision approach.
I won't start in about the new crop of very low time chaps we have coming into the RHS these days as I expect every jet pilot to meet the standard and that should include the ability to hand fly a raw data visual approach - but that is what the sim is for.
It is good to see chaps involved in a frank exchange of views on an interesting topic.
All The Best,
Brad
If we might just have a look at:
<QUOTE>
The risks IMHO are 1) people who never fly them! 2) Not watching airspeed. 3) Not watching bank angle 4)Misjudging rate of descent on base/final and turn to final 5)Misjudging vertical profile overall. 6) Flying in bad viz/Wx in general 7) Flying in heavy traffic 8) Flying with tricky terrain.
The main benefit is surely going to be reduced time/fuel burn.
<UNQUOTE>
Each of these are clear risk factors and are identified in the FSF ALAR (Flight Safety Foundation Approach and Landing Accident Reduction) project. Each of these risk factors is easily mitigated by flying a Terminal Approach Radar monitored autocoupled ILS or at worst a VNAV straight-in approach.
The benefit of reduced time/fuel needs to be assayed against the increase risk of an unstabilised approach and resultant Go Around. There are also question about designing SOPs for a Visual Approach .. what are the standard calls, what are the trigger points for gear/flap, how do we tell when the guy flying it needs some support etc?
What I am getting at is that as professional aviators charged with a lot of responsibility we are expected to provide maximum affordable safety at all times and I, personally, am not convinced of the cost benefit of visual approaches, particularly non-runway-aligned when there is a proven safer alternative available for the sake of a few SOPs, briefing and setup of the cockpit for an Instrument Approach.
The argument of maintaining the ability to hand fly a no FD A/T visual approach for the vanishingly small chance of a total EFIS failure seems, to me, false economy.
My company forbids turning the FD off under normal operations unless rearming it when visual on a non precision approach.
I won't start in about the new crop of very low time chaps we have coming into the RHS these days as I expect every jet pilot to meet the standard and that should include the ability to hand fly a raw data visual approach - but that is what the sim is for.
It is good to see chaps involved in a frank exchange of views on an interesting topic.
All The Best,
Brad
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh you dangerous pilots!!!!
just joking!!
our airline, with a slight blue tint flying out of STN, deem it to be rocket science and we have to DOUBLE BRIEF!!!!!
my god, we have to say it twice---
they actually discourage it.
our airline, with a slight blue tint flying out of STN, deem it to be rocket science and we have to DOUBLE BRIEF!!!!!
my god, we have to say it twice---
they actually discourage it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think in Ryanair Vissual approaches are forbidden so in this case I think is a good election.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No night time visuals.
Here's another vote against night time visuals.
I don't like them unless I've got pretty specific conditions: Full moon. Approach over water. Fresh snow on the ground w/ full moon. Very familiar with local area, etc...
I don't like them unless I've got pretty specific conditions: Full moon. Approach over water. Fresh snow on the ground w/ full moon. Very familiar with local area, etc...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Bradley, I wonder if you are missing the point?
A visual approach is a reasonable level of risk to assume, as long as certain parameters are met...which of course depends on your own company specific SOP's, and how you apply them.
My present employer, as well as the previous one, assess a visual approach as a perfectly acceptable method for the flightcrew to get their respective aircraft onto the runway in a safe efficient fashion.
Far be it for me to question your own personal stand point, suffice to say however, I suspect that there are a great many who do not share your viewpoint.
Yet Bradley, that risk does exist..so in essense you are removing that link in the error/event chain that could prevent a negative outcome.
Finally
Perhaps Bradley, your opinion is coloured somewhat by your present operational environment (and I'm a transplanted Kiwi who now flys in Europe)......if that opinion/idea was promulgated here, a great many heavy jet operators would be unable to service certain destinations with any regularity..as you probably know.
On the other extreme, you have the USA where ATC will quite happily clear you for a visual approach...and clear you to land...with 3 or 4 aircraft ahead of you
The benefit of reduced time/fuel needs to be assayed against the increase risk of an unstabilised approach and resultant Go Around. There are also question about designing SOPs for a Visual Approach .. what are the standard calls, what are the trigger points for gear/flap, how do we tell when the guy flying it needs some support etc?
My present employer, as well as the previous one, assess a visual approach as a perfectly acceptable method for the flightcrew to get their respective aircraft onto the runway in a safe efficient fashion.
What I am getting at is that as professional aviators charged with a lot of responsibility we are expected to provide maximum affordable safety at all times and I, personally, am not convinced of the cost benefit of visual approaches, particularly non-runway-aligned when there is a proven safer alternative available for the sake of a few SOPs, briefing and setup of the cockpit for an Instrument Approach.
The argument of maintaining the ability to hand fly a no FD A/T visual approach for the vanishingly small chance of a total EFIS failure seems, to me, false economy.
Finally
I won't start in about the new crop of very low time chaps we have coming into the RHS these days as I expect every jet pilot to meet the standard and that should include the ability to hand fly a raw data visual approach - but that is what the sim is for.
On the other extreme, you have the USA where ATC will quite happily clear you for a visual approach...and clear you to land...with 3 or 4 aircraft ahead of you
Last edited by haughtney1; 16th Nov 2007 at 21:35.
Aren't we forgetting traffic separation ? When VFR in a control zone here in Denmark (and I guess elsewhere) all you get is traffic information !
As a pax I wouldn't feel comfortable in the back of a 737 with the PF using half of her mental energy trying to spot and avoid two or five C172s in the pattern.
As a private pilot, I am sometimes busy enough trying to spot AC that the TWR has informed me of.
Or am I missing something ?
As a pax I wouldn't feel comfortable in the back of a 737 with the PF using half of her mental energy trying to spot and avoid two or five C172s in the pattern.
As a private pilot, I am sometimes busy enough trying to spot AC that the TWR has informed me of.
Or am I missing something ?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't we forgetting traffic separation ? When VFR in a control zone here in Denmark (and I guess elsewhere) all you get is traffic information !
As a pax I wouldn't feel comfortable in the back of a 737 with the PF using half of her mental energy trying to spot and avoid two or five C172s in the pattern.
Or am I missing something ?
As a pax I wouldn't feel comfortable in the back of a 737 with the PF using half of her mental energy trying to spot and avoid two or five C172s in the pattern.
Or am I missing something ?