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?

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.

ok, he said that would use 500ft above the airport elev and use it like a "visual decision point" here FAA states 800ft ceiling

We use 600ft AAL so the "500" call is not blanked. :ok:

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.

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.

I am all with you, but I guess the confusion came from mixing legal ops with bad habits. In my view the discussion is NIL, because if it becomes reality, somebody did leave the legal path. But, I have to admit, there are places, were "visual approach" is misused, worst example for me the small metal "VMC between layers at IFR pickup" lie, but this has little to do with good airmenship.

COMPANY MINIMA, sure I understand, but in all cases references to any set minima should be taken as AAL, thus never Radio Altimeter due sloping terrain...

ZB,

What aircraft and what logic are you referring to?

Thanks,

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.

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'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.

plenty of caribbean airports lacks of precission approaches and good weather comes around so why not try it

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.

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?

So tell me, at what point on a visual approach should you become 'visual'?

By the 25nm or 10nm MSA, whatever applies at the time. :ok:

or 500 AAL vertically

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.