A couple of definitons for you:
pilot (AIRCRAFT)
noun [C]
a person who flies an aircraft
robot
noun [C]
a machine used to perform jobs automatically, which is controlled by a computer
I know which one I'd rather be.........
Seriously, we get paid to fly aircraft and we should be able to inspire confidence in our passengers. There are times when instrument approaches are safer, even in VMC (high traffic etc), but if you can't fly a simple visual approach and landing in an aircraft you have been checked out on then you shouldn't be permitted to operate it -especially with fare paying passengers on board.

The big problem arises when companies, either overtly or covertly, advise pilots that manual flight is not 'approved of', thus de-skilling their pilot workforce without having established appropriate means of cost reduction in the short term to reflect the lower professional standards. Regulators who don't act in the flying public's best interests are also implicated. :ugh:

.


Well said PP

One crisp morning back in April, I think, the day that Heathrow got all clogged up on the ground (discussed in another thread), there was a rare 40 minutes or so from about 08:30 when the Director was offering pilots the option of visual approaches. He was enticing them with the phrase "can you see Heathrow...?".

I'm happy to report that fights broke out on flightdecks ("MINE! no MINE!! I'm the Captain dammit!"), cabin crew danced the conga in the aisles and hats were tossed high into the air. Well, maybe I exaggerate. But on 120.4, every pilot sounded very keen to take the opportunity. And that's rather reassuring to an occasional pax like me. :ok:

In good weather with the conditions for it, there is no excuse for not flying visually. It is legal, economical and safe. If I was on a line check and elected for a radar ILS under conditions which permit a visual I would have some explaining to do. We are paid to fly from A to B in the most economical way possible, if the company asks you why you didn't save a few hundred kilos of fuel, Im afraid "because I don't like visuals" won't really wash.

Thanks All
 

Thanks All for your replies.

Cheers,

Brad

I'm intrigued that none of you have mentioned Visual Manoeuvring (Circling) approaches, which are routinely conducted by CAT aircraft around the world in much more challenging circumstances than the CAVOK, no traffic situations you've been discussing. If airlines and regulatory authorities are happy to approve scheduled pax flights day and night into airports where - in at least one case I can think of in the UK - the only way to land on the normally into wind runway under IFR involves an IAP downwind to the opposite runway then a visual break to fly a low level circuit, often just under the cloudbase, to land into wind, then where on earth is the problem with visual approaches when you can see for miles?
NS

Ah ha, you see the paradox, NorthSouth...there really isn't any, and yet, many of those same pilots who clamor for that visual approach on a nice sunny day are the very ones who think that low circling with a large jet is somehow not all that appropriate.

Yeah, perhaps these folks should stick to the instrument approach, landing straight in...:ugh::}

Why on earth WOULDN'T you do a visual approach? A visual means shorter track miles, less fuel used, improved piloting skills.

The fact that this thread exists is sad indeed. It's the slavish button pushers who have trouble when things go wrong not the ones who can actually fly the aeroplane.

Boeing publish profiles for visual approaches, it's hardly an unusual procedure.