Visual approaches Radio Minimums or Baro
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: PMDG
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual approaches Radio Minimums or Baro
Hi there.. I was arguing last day with someone who said that he uses RA minimums for a Visual Approach but isnt RA a bit tricky in case of adverse orography Radio altimeter could read different values. would be logic use MDA for a visual approach based on a lets say a VOR Baro reference?
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At home
Age: 64
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what part of the world you are in but my understanding is that there are no minimums for a visual approach. There are none published for a visual procedure. At my company we do use 300'baro on the Airbus for published visual approaches but that is only for computer logic.
The FAA doesn't recognize any minimums for visual approaches except for minimum weather requirements possibly.
The FAA doesn't recognize any minimums for visual approaches except for minimum weather requirements possibly.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Greater London Area
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could somebody please give an example, when there would be something like "visual approach minima"? In my view, "cleared for visual" can only be issued for a point in time where you are visual, so if somebody clears me for visual, and I ain't at that point, I am "unable", or am I too simple minded?
W have quite clear requirements in our AIP for a Visual Approach, and until they are achieved and the crew advises ATC that they are "Visual" ie they can comply with those requirements, then ATC cannot issue a visual approach clearance.
If cleared for a visual approach, you comply with the STAR (if you are on one) or you track to 5nm from the airport then position for a circuit/pattern or as otherwise directed eg "direct to left base". You must still get a separate clearance to land from the tower. The is no "minima" per se.
If cleared for a visual approach, you comply with the STAR (if you are on one) or you track to 5nm from the airport then position for a circuit/pattern or as otherwise directed eg "direct to left base". You must still get a separate clearance to land from the tower. The is no "minima" per se.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Greater London Area
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minima for a visual approach ???
Don't you just look out of the window and if you can see the runway then you land the aircraft.
Don't you just look out of the window and if you can see the runway then you land the aircraft.
Last edited by Fly4Business; 7th Apr 2016 at 09:09.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: 43N
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what part of the world you are in but my understanding is that there are no minimums for a visual approach. There are none published for a visual procedure. At my company we do use 300'baro on the Airbus for published visual approaches but that is only for computer logic.
The FAA doesn't recognize any minimums for visual approaches except for minimum weather requirements possibly.
The FAA doesn't recognize any minimums for visual approaches except for minimum weather requirements possibly.
What aircraft and what logic are you referring to?
Thanks,
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US carriers (including mine) usually just leave the "minimums" at the baro minimum for whatever approach you have briefed as backup to your visual, or baro mins at 200 AFE otherwise. RA mins are in my experience at least generally only used for cat 2 and 3 approaches. These approaches have been flight checked and certified at RA minimums, so you are guaranteed to not have false minimums call outs due to terrain contouring, as previously pointed out.
One logical reason for keeping a "minimum" set as SOP on a visual is to prompt the flying pilot to make a "landing" callout sometime just before the flare. This is a last minute "I'm still alive" check to confirm to the pilot monitoring that the PF is in fact not incapacitated at the most critical point in the arrival.
One logical reason for keeping a "minimum" set as SOP on a visual is to prompt the flying pilot to make a "landing" callout sometime just before the flare. This is a last minute "I'm still alive" check to confirm to the pilot monitoring that the PF is in fact not incapacitated at the most critical point in the arrival.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At home
Age: 64
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At AA, the US side on the Bus, we set 300 in the baro field on a Published Visual Approach procedure. FOM 2f.2.8 RNAV Visual and VMS/CVFP Visual Approaches. Approach Procedures 1. d. Enter BARO altitude of 300ft AFE on the PERF APPR page.
I do not know the actual reason for this but we do it at DCA, (Washington National) for the RNAV-F, river visual approach.
I do not know the actual reason for this but we do it at DCA, (Washington National) for the RNAV-F, river visual approach.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure if you are making a visual approach to an instrument runway. If so, and at TOD you have already briefed the instrument approach and set the minima. Why alter the bug? Just leave it.
If making a visual to a non-instrument runway in severe clear VMC then some guys set airport +500' for the land/GA stable gate criteria. However, how many pax operations operate onto non instrument approach runways? There has to be something, if nothing more than a cloud-break let down.
If making a visual to a non-instrument runway in severe clear VMC then some guys set airport +500' for the land/GA stable gate criteria. However, how many pax operations operate onto non instrument approach runways? There has to be something, if nothing more than a cloud-break let down.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: 43N
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If flying a RNAV-V approach there are no minimums. It is, by definition, a visual approach. As opposed to a RNAV (GPS) etc approach where we set a barometer minimum (per operator)
On our aircraft if a barometric min is set, the FD's will command approach NAV
until 50' below the barometric min or 400' RA, the FD's then revert to HDG/VERT SPD. I imagine the reversion is to remind the pilot he or she is now on a visual approach and to not blindly follow the FD's to TD.
On our aircraft if a barometric min is set, the FD's will command approach NAV
until 50' below the barometric min or 400' RA, the FD's then revert to HDG/VERT SPD. I imagine the reversion is to remind the pilot he or she is now on a visual approach and to not blindly follow the FD's to TD.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This makes no sense at all to me.
Either you're visual or you are not. If you lose sight of the runway you go around. If you cannot see the runway you do not commence a visual approach hence you disregard the minimums. Why set a minimum that has no use?
Either you're visual or you are not. If you lose sight of the runway you go around. If you cannot see the runway you do not commence a visual approach hence you disregard the minimums. Why set a minimum that has no use?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, in the world of regulated & regimented public pax operations the concept of Minima is well understood and expected. It's removal causes confusion. Most operators have a 'landing gate' at which point there is a decision to continue a stable approach or GA. This is also a fundamental safety addition that has been introduced over time. Its disrespect has been shown to create incidents/accidents.
This philosophy applies to all approaches, even visual ones. A decision has to be made. So setting a 'decision point' is not so daft and has great merit & necessity. Considering some of the screw ups on the 'not so often practiced visual approaches' by large pax jets it can be claimed it is most relevant.
I've flown single crew visual sectors many times. if it wasn't going to be visual at destination you didn't depart. It was a different environment. However, I believe the question was aimed at the more normal MCC pax IFR type operation. In that case I believe a decision point is a good idea, so why not set it at the IFR DA point and still keep the landing gate active? With nothing set it can lead to the landing gate criteria being overlooked, and the mental model being that a landing is assured. Not so healthy.
This philosophy applies to all approaches, even visual ones. A decision has to be made. So setting a 'decision point' is not so daft and has great merit & necessity. Considering some of the screw ups on the 'not so often practiced visual approaches' by large pax jets it can be claimed it is most relevant.
I've flown single crew visual sectors many times. if it wasn't going to be visual at destination you didn't depart. It was a different environment. However, I believe the question was aimed at the more normal MCC pax IFR type operation. In that case I believe a decision point is a good idea, so why not set it at the IFR DA point and still keep the landing gate active? With nothing set it can lead to the landing gate criteria being overlooked, and the mental model being that a landing is assured. Not so healthy.