[Airlines Policy] Visual Approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: over french airspace
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[Airlines Policy] Visual Approach
Hello,
I know that some airlines do not accept visual approaches, Ryanair for example, if I remember it is write on their exploitation manual.
Do you know others ? And why they prevent their pilots to -in some cases- economize fuel and time, whereas this is one of their main purpose.
I know that some airlines do not accept visual approaches, Ryanair for example, if I remember it is write on their exploitation manual.
Do you know others ? And why they prevent their pilots to -in some cases- economize fuel and time, whereas this is one of their main purpose.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A well executed visual approach can save time and fuel but I hardly ever fly one these days for a number of reasons. Noise abatement and continuous descent regulations mean that you're normally too high to allow more than a mile or two to be shaved off your routing and target stabilisation SOPs are monitored by OPTIC so it's safer to remain with radar. BTW Ryanair crews always seem to be up for visual approaches, when available, unless things have changed recently?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: over french airspace
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, because on a medium size airport where ATC can't give radar vectors (you must proceed as published so : IAF-> ILS procedure (in some cases the integration : offset or teardrop) the ATC can suggests a visual approach, all the more when it's CAVOK.. (I don't talk about circlings which is, sometimes, mandatory)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my former company visual approaches at night were not allowed, i know of no restriction like that in my current one, in fact we do like to take the visual if it saves time and fuel and we are in a position (energy wise) to take advantage of it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair DO allow Visuals. There are some specific restrictions such as stabilised approach criteria being met, F/O experience level and so on. All quite reasonable. There IS a ban on self positioning night time approaches and rightly so after a 737-800 shaped hole was nearly left on a Spanish mountain, the GPWS saved the day. You may be vectored or use an instrument approach to get yourself to a straight in final, once you have the PAPIs in sight you can continue.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: over french airspace
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Dit : Last week in an airport in France a FI/FE said me that FR (and others airlines) prevent their pilots to accept visual app and that is write in their exploitation manual (which is ridiculous to my mind), that's why I ask you the question ...
EDIT: Ok, thx Telstar
EDIT: Ok, thx Telstar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Age: 49
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pullup,
You are getting confused, if you follow the published arrival to the IAF and then the ILS this is an IFR approach, can't be anything else, nothing to do with radar vectors or airport size etc. If once established you elect to continue visually, (Day only of course, unless you're a bat and can see the terrain at night1) that is another matter and the requirement is to be stabilised as one former comment highlighted. Ryanair have no ban on visual approaches, infact as one comment made, the final segment of the npa is visual. What is "exploitation manual" never come across this, JAR says OMA/OMB etc. Company restrictions will be in Part A or Part B.
You are getting confused, if you follow the published arrival to the IAF and then the ILS this is an IFR approach, can't be anything else, nothing to do with radar vectors or airport size etc. If once established you elect to continue visually, (Day only of course, unless you're a bat and can see the terrain at night1) that is another matter and the requirement is to be stabilised as one former comment highlighted. Ryanair have no ban on visual approaches, infact as one comment made, the final segment of the npa is visual. What is "exploitation manual" never come across this, JAR says OMA/OMB etc. Company restrictions will be in Part A or Part B.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: over french airspace
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
I said that airport size and the fact of being able to give vectors have to do (IMHO) with the ATC proposition to finish visually. Why ? Because generally in small IFR airports the IAF is in final which implies a procedure hippodrome (longest integration) and there's not a lot of traffic. So in this case and if the weather is good, the ATC is more likely to propose a visual app before the IAF (which is on the RWY axis) than at EGKK or EHAM, because there's a real interest.
I said that airport size and the fact of being able to give vectors have to do (IMHO) with the ATC proposition to finish visually. Why ? Because generally in small IFR airports the IAF is in final which implies a procedure hippodrome (longest integration) and there's not a lot of traffic. So in this case and if the weather is good, the ATC is more likely to propose a visual app before the IAF (which is on the RWY axis) than at EGKK or EHAM, because there's a real interest.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainbow
98% nonsense I would say, a number of airlines are making agressive use of the FDM to reprimand crews for small and transient excedences of the limits set on the FDM (you should know how the B73NG airspeed jumps about when it gets a bit bumpy!).
This policy is discouraging pilots from making visual approaches and is normaly found in the airlines in the gulf but one airline near to home seems to be very keen on using FDM data to punish individual crew members if an FO that I know is telling the truth.
It would seem ironic to me that FDM is intended to be a flight safety tool for gathering trend data and as a control on the people who fly wrecklessly yet some airlines agressive use of the data is having the result of de-skilling the crews for fear of being called into the office for a minor transgresion of the limits when flying visualy and/or with the automatics disengaged.
This policy is discouraging pilots from making visual approaches and is normaly found in the airlines in the gulf but one airline near to home seems to be very keen on using FDM data to punish individual crew members if an FO that I know is telling the truth.
It would seem ironic to me that FDM is intended to be a flight safety tool for gathering trend data and as a control on the people who fly wrecklessly yet some airlines agressive use of the data is having the result of de-skilling the crews for fear of being called into the office for a minor transgresion of the limits when flying visualy and/or with the automatics disengaged.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe, I tend to agree with you on this, most of the people on these forums have never been in an aircraft other than as a pax, the whole forum is getting corrupted by complete tosh these days!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re>vectors to final at night... many papi will only be certified within 4 NM... according to the training department, this rules vectors to final at night at most places if you follow their logic...
Also it appears that more and more visuals are being flown by FR drivers... And quite a few training personal are praising the virtues of the visual...
Also it appears that more and more visuals are being flown by FR drivers... And quite a few training personal are praising the virtues of the visual...
Downwind right hand one night at a major UK airfield; the weather is good and we are getting radar vectors. I am flying and the F/O is doing the radio:
ATC: "The airfield is in your 2 o'clock".
F/O: "Roger".
ATC: "Can you actually see the airfield now in your 3 o'clock?"
F/O: "Affirmative, but there is scope for embarrassment".
I laughed about that for years.
P.S. Before the thought police get started, we said "affirmative" in those days.
ATC: "The airfield is in your 2 o'clock".
F/O: "Roger".
ATC: "Can you actually see the airfield now in your 3 o'clock?"
F/O: "Affirmative, but there is scope for embarrassment".
I laughed about that for years.
P.S. Before the thought police get started, we said "affirmative" in those days.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moving on a bit from this, what is peoples take on night visual approaches?
My company, recently merged, has 2 opposing views. One very keen to underetake a night visual, one not so. Currently the ops manual is a bit vague.
My company, recently merged, has 2 opposing views. One very keen to underetake a night visual, one not so. Currently the ops manual is a bit vague.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company CFU. Night visuals now banned despite there being a nice bay to fly downwind right for 35 given the right conditions. You must fly the non precision close to terrain for 35 instead. Circle for 17 is OK though (no other option!).
Sadly, we are no longer allowed to use our common sense/training and years of experience because of the ever growing 'elf and safety culture.
Sadly, we are no longer allowed to use our common sense/training and years of experience because of the ever growing 'elf and safety culture.
