USA missed approach track when on the LOC they give you a visual approach?

[9 points]

Hi all, I'm operating into the US and would like to know what ATC expect in the situation where they clear you to intercept the LOC then ask you to report the runway in sight then say "clear visual approach" then some time later on final you have to go around. Is it expected that you follow the missed approach for the ILS? Does it depend on the way they worded the instructions? Is there a norm?
Thanks heaps.

[B2N2]

I hate it when they do that as it creates exactly the question you just posted.
I would decline a clearance for a visual approach.
When you hear “visual approaches in use” just request the ILS.
I’m assuming you’re going into airports that you are not familiar with?
Fly the approach.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_4.html

[Check Airman]

AIM 5-4-23 speaks about this

A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.

In short, at places where international carriers are going (ORD, JFK etc), you will not fly the published missed from any approach- instrument or visual. Those are basically there for lost communication, so in general, we don't even brief them. You'll get vectors to be resequenced. Outside of the flight training environment, I've never flown the published missed- even at smaller airports. Even then, we had to specifically request to do so.

The wording is fairly standard. All you'll hear is "cleared for the visual". When operationally necessary, they'll clear you for the visual from pretty much any position. You needn't be on the loc. A few things to note if you're unfamiliar:

-Reporting the field in sight is understood as a request for a visual approach

-You do not need to have the field in sight to do a visual approach. As long as you can see the preceding aircraft, you can fly a visual. This is less common, but it does happen, and again, is used when necessary to expedite traffic flow.

If you have a specific approach request, I'd make the request as soon as possible after contacting the approach controller. The (unwritten?) philosophy with local airlines is that we can always accept the visual as long as conditions permit. At my home airport, international carriers tend to make a fuss when given a visual, so the controllers just seem to issue instrument approaches all day- even on gin clear days.

[B2N2]

you will not fly the published missed from any approach- instrument or visual. Those are basically there for lost communication, so in general, we don't even brief them.

This I don’t agree with.
You are expected to at least initiate the missed approach as published until you’re told otherwise by ATC......or you have already received alternate missed approach instructions.

4-21

Missed Approach

1. When a landing cannot be accomplished, advise ATC and, upon reaching the missed approach point defined on the approach procedure chart, the pilot must comply with the missed approach instructions for the procedure being used or with an alternate missed approach procedure specified by ATC.

[Check Airman]

Perhaps I was too general with my reply. On an instrument approach, strictly speaking, yes- initiate the published missed. But as a practical matter, before you get very far, the tower will probably have you on a vector. It's unlikely that you'll climb straight ahead to 800' then turn etc.

[9 points]

Thank you very much. It is a bit concerning and I don't have access to the standard FAA style manuals. My airline has it's own rather enormous set of manuals with multiple references to country specific manuals but it all gets a bit hard. At least the USA is all on one system, not like Europe!

So I appreciate the info.

On a brighter note, I'm stoked to be flying here. It's so well organised. Once I get used to it I'll really enjoy it.

Cheers mates.

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by 9 points

Hi all, I'm operating into the US and would like to know what ATC expect in the situation where they clear you to intercept the LOC then ask you to report the runway in sight then say "clear visual approach"

They can't clear you for the visual until you report the airport or preceding traffic in sight, which is why, if you haven't reported it yet, they need to give you some kind of clearance to point you at the runway (i.e., intercept the localizer).

To save one round of Q&A on the radio, you can add "field in sight" to your check-in with the final approach controller if visuals are being conducted.

(Some debate exists among pilots over whether this annoys controllers if done "too early," and I say no. If you're leery of doing it too early, you can add it to any transmission of a vector read-back when you're 10 miles out or so)

then some time later on final you have to go around. Is it expected that you follow the missed approach for the ILS?

As detailed in others' answers, no. The visual is the visual.

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by B2N2

I hate it when they do that as it creates exactly the question you just posted.
I would decline a clearance for a visual approach.
When you hear “visual approaches in use” just request the ILS.
I’m assuming you’re going into airports that you are not familiar with?
Fly the approach.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_4.html

I'd doesn't create that question once you understand the procedure (that when you're cleared for the visual, you're cleared for the visual; and whatever you may be cleared to prior to that, has no further effect)

While it's your prerogative to decline or request anything, being cleared for the localizer and then for the visual is not a reason to decline the visual.

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by 9 points

It is a bit concerning and I don't have access to the standard FAA style manuals.

As a general reference text, try this for starters if you haven't seen it already:

https://www.mypilotstore.com/mypilotstore/sep/14126

[Smokey Lomcevak]

Originally Posted by 9 points

On a brighter note, I'm stoked to be flying here. It's so well organised. Once I get used to it I'll really enjoy it.

Cheers mates.

Great! Enjoy it. Check Airman’s FAR-AIM quote is what we generally work to - straight ahead until a steer is given.

As an aside, a plan for a visual is a really useful tool to have in the USA. There are times in places like Florida, for example, whether pretty nasty weather can be dotted about - and often at about 10 miles final, funnily enough. ATC in this part of the world are great at working with you to find a way through or around in my experience, but there’s only so low they can let you go on radar. A visual approach gives you the freedom to avoid any close in weather, and descend to intercept the final approach at whatever distance and height you feel comfortable with, unencumbered by minimum vectoring altitudes.

[B2N2]

Originally Posted by Smokey Lomcevak

A visual approach gives you the freedom to avoid any close in weather, and descend to intercept the final approach at whatever distance and height you feel comfortable with, unencumbered by minimum vectoring altitudes.

Despite your best intentions...some would consider that scudrunning....

While it's your prerogative to decline or request anything, being cleared for the localizer and then for the visual is not a reason to decline the visual.
Quote

It sure is my prerogative to decline something that is intended to decrease the controllers workload and increase mine.......at an airport that I may not be familiar with.

”I was just trying to help” is not going to cut it in front of an NTSB judge while trying to defend an altitude violation or loss of separation incident to to a bungled or misunderstood go around / missed approach.




Say NO to visuals unless you’re very familiar with the airport, it’s surrounding terrain and Airspace restrictions and any local expectations as far as going missed.

When you’re Cleared to Land that runway is yours until you are ready to vacate not when ATC tells you (within reason and operational requirements).
When you’re Cleared for the Approach that Missed Approach Procedure is yours in case you need it until YOU decide otherwise.
ATC does not get to make that decision for you.

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by B2N2

Say NO to visuals

I'm really not seeing this increased workload you're pointing to. As a baseline, you do the exact same as you would have done otherwise, i.e., push the "Approach" button and the autopilot flies the instrument approach it was already programmed to.

If your taste is to fly the airplane yourself, any prescribed tracks go out the window (which is moot anyway, as you're on the localizer, or an intercept vector, already) as do altitudes, so there can be no altitude violation to worry about. There can't be a loss of separation to defend against, as pilots aren't responsible for separation minimums (controllers are). Of course legalities aside, there is the self-preservation concern of not hitting another plane and keeping a good lookout, but this is the same everywhere, no matter how familiar or unfamiliar the airport. Then there's the concern about landing on the right runway, and, despite the multiple backups on the instrument panel to point you to it, I'll grant you that one; if you've got some layout with a million runways, and if you start heading for the wrong one, by the time your backups tell you, you may be already overshooting final and encroaching on someone else.

As far as the "what is the missed" concern, unlike an ILS where the plate says (and maybe you brief) one thing, and 99% chance they give you a vector once you actually go around, for a visual you KNOW you're expecting a vector, so there is one less piece of the puzzle to screw up. It's the more simple and straightforward option in this aspect. And there are no "local expectations."

And the bit about the missed approach procedure being yours "until YOU decide otherwise" is not really true. You're cleared for it initially by virtue of being cleared for the approach. But then when you go around and they give you a vector, that is an ATC instruction like any other and it is your duty to comply with it unless an emergency exists, you lose your radio, or similar. So yes, ATC does get to make that decision for you.

"Surrounding terrain?" Don't hit it, you're visual. "Airspace restrictions?" There aren't any, you're on an IFR flight plan. (OK, 200 knots under class B, but sometimes they put you there even while on vectors. And I don't know that I've ever been cleared for the visual while still going faster than that, anyway. (Plus, it's too late for any of this to go right or wrong once you're on an intercept vector or the localizer itself, in the OP's scenario)

In general, any time I hear "cleared for the visual" I feel all the weight coming off my shoulders as all the complexity dissolves away into a situation of simply flying the airplane toward the runway. This opposite attitude, that it's more workload to save only for familiar airports and low stress situations, is completely foreign to me.

[B2N2]

You’re entitled to your (lengthy) opinion.

[vilas]

From the discussion that ensued it is clear that not everyone is sure of what visual clearance means. So unless one has all the answers declining visual is a safer option.

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by vilas

From the discussion that ensued it is clear that not everyone is sure of what visual clearance means. So unless one has all the answers declining visual is a safer option.

Alternatively, one could learn the answer (which has been posted in this thread, post #3) and become sure; and, thereafter, no longer have a need to hamstring their own flying.

[Vessbot]

I missed this from earlier, and it's pretty crucial and no one addresssed it. In post #4 B2N2 posted a reference from AIM 5-4-21 for the missed approach "as published," (from a "chart") but that reference is not relevant to visual approaches, as it's about instrument approaches. There is nothing published and there is no chart.

Check Airman's reference from 5-4-23 clarifies that visuals, instead, are not instrument approach procedures, and "has no missed approach segment."

[jmmoric]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

"cleared for the visual".

Sounds like you have defined visual approaches then.

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by jmmoric

Sounds like you have defined visual approaches then.

Not sure what you mean by defined visuals, but if you’re talking about ones with preset ground tracks, then yes, they’re used every day.

[B2N2]

Originally Posted by Vessbot

I missed this from earlier, and it's pretty crucial and no one addresssed it. In post #4 B2N2 posted a reference from AIM 5-4-21 for the missed approach "as published," (from a "chart") but that reference is not relevant to visual approaches, as it's about instrument approaches. There is nothing published and there is no chart.

Check Airman's reference from 5-4-23 clarifies that visuals, instead, are not instrument approach procedures, and "has no missed approach segment."

Read my post again.
I responded to this:

In short, at places where international carriers are going (ORD, JFK etc), you will not fly the published missed from any approach- instrument or visual. Those are basically there for lost communication, so in general, we don't even brief them.

Which in my opinion is incorrect.
I never argued that a visual has a “missed approach” published.
In fact that is my biggest objection with accepting “visual” approaches.
Being in a high workload phase of flight, close to the ground with rapid decisions to be made is NOT the right time to be wondering which way you need to go.
I’m not talking about a fixed gear piston single that requires 2 min to climb to 1000’ and even then is only just barely at the end of the runway.

[Vessbot]

Originally Posted by B2N2

Read my post again.
I responded to this:



Which in my opinion is incorrect.
I never argued that a visual has a “missed approach” published.
In fact that is my biggest objection with accepting “visual” approaches.
Being in a high workload phase of flight, close to the ground with rapid decisions to be made is NOT the right time to be wondering which way you need to go.
I’m not talking about a fixed gear piston single that requires 2 min to climb to 1000’ and even then is only just barely at the end of the runway.

Thanks for the clarification on which particular part of Check Airman's post you were responding to, and so my response assuming you were talking about visuals was off the mark. And I disagree with him in that the published missed should be briefed (if there's any chance you will be cleared for the ILS) even though it probably won't be flown.

But if the lack of predetermined instructions is reason for you to object to visuals, then by that same reason you should also be objecting to ILS'es, since you are virtually guaranteed to get tower instructions for those too.