Visual approaches Radio Minimums or Baro
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my company, we set the mins to the approach we're using to back up the visual. One of the reasons, I assume is that if ATC switches us to an instrument approach at the last minute, there's one less thing to do. Everything's already set up.
On a related note, why is it that non-US carriers seem so hesitant to accept visual approaches? If you've planned an ILS to a runway, and ATC offers a visual, it's pretty rare to hear a non-US crew accept the clearance. Just my unscientific observation.
On a related note, why is it that non-US carriers seem so hesitant to accept visual approaches? If you've planned an ILS to a runway, and ATC offers a visual, it's pretty rare to hear a non-US crew accept the clearance. Just my unscientific observation.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: EU
Age: 34
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my previous employer, the largest 737 operator in Europe, you could only accept a visual if you had briefed it and double briefed it, and you had to be lined up with the runway at 4nm out. So in theory, if you hadn't briefed it, you could not accept..
Fortunately, at my current employer were happy to accept a visual and the only requirement is to be stable at 500ft. Of course, once we accept we will keep eachother in the loop about the intentions and course of action.
If the minima were already set for ILS we don't change it. If we planned a visual most guys will put 500ft AGL as a reminder to be stable.
Fortunately, at my current employer were happy to accept a visual and the only requirement is to be stable at 500ft. Of course, once we accept we will keep eachother in the loop about the intentions and course of action.
If the minima were already set for ILS we don't change it. If we planned a visual most guys will put 500ft AGL as a reminder to be stable.
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 was discussing, with a friend at a major EU national carrier, the whole issue of big/small a/c approaches and piloting techniques at their HUGE very noise sensitive hub. Not much has changed since my days there when flying for one of the 'lower down the food chain' local airlines. Visuals are allowed during the day hours; be sure not to overfly built up areas, keep it quiet and establish finals not <1000'. Seems all hunky dory, simple, fun, skilful. Easy to make the decision last minute and just fly the damn a/c onto finals using Mk.1 eyeball. And that's without PAPI's if the ILS GP is transmitting. My friend took great delight in doing just this with a B747 and now with B737. Indeed, it is encouraged with B737 to allow a short turn in ahead of a further out B747 to save time/spacing. The most basic of piloting manoeuvres.
It would seem one major?? airline would ask for a hold to brief such a manoeuvre, set up the FMC for an LNAV/VNAV, then call ready; by which time you have slipped back from No.1 to No.4 behind 3 heavies.
They do, now, fly into said hub. I wonder how it goes on busy days?
Regarding the comment about a visual approach has no minima: airlines tend to have a 500' gate. To rely solely on PM to call it out from memory is a hole in the cheese. They are likely looking more outside than in. Consider how many incidents/accidents have been contributed to by a pilot not calling out/warning the other of a parameter. If there is an automatic method available to make such a call e.g. "minimums" at 500' why not use it. Close the hole. In my spam-can the land/GA decision is usually about flare time; unless it was blindingly obvious a minute earlier. Glide approaches are allowed in the 'busy bees'.
It would seem one major?? airline would ask for a hold to brief such a manoeuvre, set up the FMC for an LNAV/VNAV, then call ready; by which time you have slipped back from No.1 to No.4 behind 3 heavies.
They do, now, fly into said hub. I wonder how it goes on busy days?
Regarding the comment about a visual approach has no minima: airlines tend to have a 500' gate. To rely solely on PM to call it out from memory is a hole in the cheese. They are likely looking more outside than in. Consider how many incidents/accidents have been contributed to by a pilot not calling out/warning the other of a parameter. If there is an automatic method available to make such a call e.g. "minimums" at 500' why not use it. Close the hole. In my spam-can the land/GA decision is usually about flare time; unless it was blindingly obvious a minute earlier. Glide approaches are allowed in the 'busy bees'.
At my previous employer, the largest 737 operator in Europe, you could only accept a visual if you had briefed it and double briefed it, and you had to be lined up with the runway at 4nm out. So in theory, if you hadn't briefed it, you could not accept..
With an ILS or VNAV/LNAV profile briefed, a 'visual' simply becomes a shortened approach with either a self-positioned segment or radar vector to the 3 degree path. The higher minima (if that's what the company require) can be set in a second. In both cases, I expect a 4 mile final would be most people's preference?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In both cases, I expect a 4 mile final would be most people's preference?
Samos, Calvi, Corfu, various others where I've taken a B757 & B767 that was not possible. Could it be that some operators can not accept some routes because their TM's are not pilot trained enough?
Samos, Calvi, Corfu, various others where I've taken a B757 & B767 that was not possible. Could it be that some operators can not accept some routes because their TM's are not pilot trained enough?
From the U.K. AIP for EGHI
Aircraft flying an instrument approach other than ILS, or those aircraft flying a visual approach, should not intercept the appropriate final approach track at a range less than 5 DME SAM, except that aircraft flying a visual approach via the downwind leg should not intercept final approach at less than 2 DME SAM for RWY 20 or 4 DME SAM for RWY 02.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: EU
Age: 34
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you say, 'in theory'. If they turned off the ILS when you were at 10d on a clear day, would you not continue?
With an ILS or VNAV/LNAV profile briefed, a 'visual' simply becomes a shortened approach with either a self-positioned segment or radar vector to the 3 degree path. The higher minima (if that's what the company require) can be set in a second. In both cases, I expect a 4 mile final would be most people's preference?
With an ILS or VNAV/LNAV profile briefed, a 'visual' simply becomes a shortened approach with either a self-positioned segment or radar vector to the 3 degree path. The higher minima (if that's what the company require) can be set in a second. In both cases, I expect a 4 mile final would be most people's preference?
In regard to the 4 mile final, I usually aim at 3 miles and 1000ft with idle thrust. If high make a wider turn, if low cut the corner to 2.5 mile for example. Spool up and stable at 500ft
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but if you f*ck it up and there is an investigation and you didn't brief it, it could have serious consequences..
Does that mean if you briefed it and still screwed it up there would be lesser consequences? (tongue in cheek). It does seem odd to the older brigade that the simplest of tasks, e.g. land on a runway that everyone can see from downwind or overhead should be deemed to be so dangerous unless you have briefed what you are going to do. There is no such thing as a standard descending visual circuit because you could start at a differing height and a differing position. The wind could effect your profile; traffic on finals - in sight- will effect your turn in. How can you brief when & what you are going to do in micro steps in advance. The only thing you know is the flap & auto brake setting. All the rest you do by good judgement during the procedure. This gives you no discretion to make a decision when close to the airfield and can assess the local situation. It's too late to act. These guys who set up LNAV/VNAV profiles for visual circuits are not any safer, perhaps less so, if circumstances force you to leave the cosiness of the sucky blanket magenta line.
Does that mean if you briefed it and still screwed it up there would be lesser consequences? (tongue in cheek). It does seem odd to the older brigade that the simplest of tasks, e.g. land on a runway that everyone can see from downwind or overhead should be deemed to be so dangerous unless you have briefed what you are going to do. There is no such thing as a standard descending visual circuit because you could start at a differing height and a differing position. The wind could effect your profile; traffic on finals - in sight- will effect your turn in. How can you brief when & what you are going to do in micro steps in advance. The only thing you know is the flap & auto brake setting. All the rest you do by good judgement during the procedure. This gives you no discretion to make a decision when close to the airfield and can assess the local situation. It's too late to act. These guys who set up LNAV/VNAV profiles for visual circuits are not any safer, perhaps less so, if circumstances force you to leave the cosiness of the sucky blanket magenta line.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bloggs,
Damn shame: that nonsense seemed to work for me throughout most of my career when visual. Of course all the poncy stuff had been discussed and set up before TOD, but if mother nature shined favourably upon us lower down, the issue became one of let a/c meet terra firma on the spot of white paint near the beginning of black bit ASAP, but in a relaxed manner.
I was teaching base training to some cadets and asked them to confirm the profile from abeam threshold to turning finals. They came out with all the correct timing and configuration stuff. Great. Now for the real thing. On the first turn onto base leg, after the correct timing, I asked them what they could see on the ground. Confused stare. "Can you see that white roofed factory beneath you?" "Yes." "Can you see that big yellow field on finals?" "Yes." "Does that give you a clue?" "Ah Ha!"
For a light-hearted moment, but mostly for myself, I listened from the jump seat to an extensive brief for an approach. Then, a few minutes after the Descent Cx's had been done, I asked PNF to recall a couple of the more salient points made in the biblical brief. 50% pass mark! The look on the crew's faces was magic.
Damn shame: that nonsense seemed to work for me throughout most of my career when visual. Of course all the poncy stuff had been discussed and set up before TOD, but if mother nature shined favourably upon us lower down, the issue became one of let a/c meet terra firma on the spot of white paint near the beginning of black bit ASAP, but in a relaxed manner.
I was teaching base training to some cadets and asked them to confirm the profile from abeam threshold to turning finals. They came out with all the correct timing and configuration stuff. Great. Now for the real thing. On the first turn onto base leg, after the correct timing, I asked them what they could see on the ground. Confused stare. "Can you see that white roofed factory beneath you?" "Yes." "Can you see that big yellow field on finals?" "Yes." "Does that give you a clue?" "Ah Ha!"
For a light-hearted moment, but mostly for myself, I listened from the jump seat to an extensive brief for an approach. Then, a few minutes after the Descent Cx's had been done, I asked PNF to recall a couple of the more salient points made in the biblical brief. 50% pass mark! The look on the crew's faces was magic.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat 5: The voice of reason!
I would say though, in reply to:
..I'd hope so!
I know you meant it tongue in cheek, but I'd also hope that your company, like mine had a No Blame policy for missed approaches, and if you had briefed for the possibility of a visual, and it hadn't gone to plan, at least there was a plan. This protects your colleague from the "let's have a go" moment.
Other than that, with you all the way.
Double brief: Why get it all into one concise, pertinent easily understandable discussion that someone will actually listen to, when I can ramble on twice, having "lost" the other guy half an hour ago!
I would say though, in reply to:
Does that mean if you briefed it and still screwed it up there would be lesser consequences?
I know you meant it tongue in cheek, but I'd also hope that your company, like mine had a No Blame policy for missed approaches, and if you had briefed for the possibility of a visual, and it hadn't gone to plan, at least there was a plan. This protects your colleague from the "let's have a go" moment.
Other than that, with you all the way.
Double brief: Why get it all into one concise, pertinent easily understandable discussion that someone will actually listen to, when I can ramble on twice, having "lost" the other guy half an hour ago!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Planning visual? and setting minima for it?
Are we talking airline business in this discussion, or General Aviation stuff?
In airline business we are supposed to have briefed and set up the approach prior to start of descent.
Top of Descent in big airplanes is about 130 nm out from destination.
A visual approach means that from the point of initiation of the approach, the intended point of landing is in sight and is expected to remain so until touchdown.
Now there are regions in the world where visibility is pretty good, but having the touchdown point in sight from 130 nm out is rare, stated mildly.
This means that the setup is for minima for the IFR approach that is to be expected.
If, at any later time, closer to the airport, the landing runway is in sight, and ATC is happy with it and the crew is happy with it, a visual completion is possible, then of course, use whatever means available to complete the approach visually, but minimums are no longer applicable.
The concept of PLANNING a visual approach and then setting minima for it just doesn't apply in airline business. You are flying IFR until proven otherwise and that proof can occur only long after you have set up for an IFR approach with its associated minima.
Once you do accept a visual completion, by all means, the RAT5 comments fully apply, the real world is outside your window!
This sort of discussion can also be found around the stable gates at 1.000 ft or 500 ft.
Usually it is 1.000 ft in IMC, or 500 ft in VMC.
Sometimes you hear people about "planning" for the 500 ft gate - NO, it is always the 1.000 ft gate, only if you see the runway from a great distance out, and will keep sight of the runway until touchdown, then you could decide to DELAY stabilization until the 500 ft gate. Here too, the proof that you are in VMC until touchdown can only occur very far into the process of the approach (remember, about 30 minutes from top of descent until touchdown in big aircraft?)
In airline business we are supposed to have briefed and set up the approach prior to start of descent.
Top of Descent in big airplanes is about 130 nm out from destination.
A visual approach means that from the point of initiation of the approach, the intended point of landing is in sight and is expected to remain so until touchdown.
Now there are regions in the world where visibility is pretty good, but having the touchdown point in sight from 130 nm out is rare, stated mildly.
This means that the setup is for minima for the IFR approach that is to be expected.
If, at any later time, closer to the airport, the landing runway is in sight, and ATC is happy with it and the crew is happy with it, a visual completion is possible, then of course, use whatever means available to complete the approach visually, but minimums are no longer applicable.
The concept of PLANNING a visual approach and then setting minima for it just doesn't apply in airline business. You are flying IFR until proven otherwise and that proof can occur only long after you have set up for an IFR approach with its associated minima.
Once you do accept a visual completion, by all means, the RAT5 comments fully apply, the real world is outside your window!
This sort of discussion can also be found around the stable gates at 1.000 ft or 500 ft.
Usually it is 1.000 ft in IMC, or 500 ft in VMC.
Sometimes you hear people about "planning" for the 500 ft gate - NO, it is always the 1.000 ft gate, only if you see the runway from a great distance out, and will keep sight of the runway until touchdown, then you could decide to DELAY stabilization until the 500 ft gate. Here too, the proof that you are in VMC until touchdown can only occur very far into the process of the approach (remember, about 30 minutes from top of descent until touchdown in big aircraft?)
A visual approach means that from the point of initiation of the approach
We do Visual approaches through the gloop down to 10k quite often.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: australia
Age: 81
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So could I say that adding a line to the aproach briefing for ILS at 120nm like:
If visual at 1000ft and stable make visual aproach." would cover the briefing needs and save any confusion between the PF and PM regarding intentions.
If visual at 1000ft and stable make visual aproach." would cover the briefing needs and save any confusion between the PF and PM regarding intentions.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't understand that. How did you make an arrival IMC to become visual at 1000'? At 1000' on an instrument approach what are you going to change if you are visual? Do you mean you might disconnect and make a manual landing? Are you suggesting that the procedures on an IMC & visual approach <1000' are somehow different, other than not calling 'minimums'? If the EGPWS calls "+100, or approaching minimums, and minimums" are you not going to respond as per SOP's? Are you going to reach down and reset the MDA bug?
I need some clarity.
I need some clarity.
Don't understand that.
Now if you get Visual a bit further back then the PNF don't need doesn't need to call the Outer marker or Fix check altitude, but that's about it. No extra briefing points required!
