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.

OP,

Are you talking about published visual approaches approaches like into EWR or a "visual approach" after you've reported the airport in sight?
Personally I dislike visual approaches so I won't call the airport in sight unless I'm somewhat lined up with the landing runway in which case I'll fly the published minima for the relevant instrument approach anyway.
Even on a "visual approach" I call out 'minimums, landing' and I back up baro with the RA.

Why the hate for visuals?

GF

Topics like this make me smile. It shows how people view aviation differently to others.
I flew into Minorca a couple of days ago and you could see the airfield from TOD. We were number 1 and cleared for a viz approach. All fully briefed and as expected.
All my FO was interested in was "what is the DH".
My response " fully stable by 1000' or we go around" again as briefed.
I feel my generation does see aviation slightly differently to the youngsters. No criticism at all but dinosaurs like me who are happy to look out the window and land will soon be outlawed.

Not this nonsense again...!

I'm getting the impression some people are scared of flying. Others appear to unable to fly unless they have rules, regulations and procedures to hang onto like a security blanket. We are talking about a simple procedure where you decide where to point the aircraft and not ATC. And there is no MDA, because you have sufficient visual reference to continue, like you do at the end of an instrument approach. It's just that this happens a lot earlier.

Given the choice, I'll always do a visual approach and I consider myself very fortunate in so much that I normally get to do one or two a week. It's just a shame that there are no visual departures because I'd like to do those as well. But that would be too radical because airports like to make the same houses suffer on every departure.

PM

Visual approach must be stable by 500.
Circling approach must be available by 300.

There is no minima for a visual approach.

Being738 - Flight Simmer by chance?

Piltdown man
 

You have hit the nail on the head, the usual reason for hiding behind rules regulations and SOP's is a lack of manual flying skill and self confidence.

The rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

This is so true "A&C" ! Regulatiions and SOPs are now taken as dogmas that can't even be questioned without being categorized as a "deviant"
Binary reasoning logic need system managers robots, and pilots have been warned few years ago !

Cause of C-17 Landing at Too-Small Airport Revealed | Flying Magazine

NTSB: Southwest pilots ?did not realize they were at wrong airport until they landed? | Safety content from ATWOnline

Sriwijaya Air Pilot Suspended for Landing at Wrong Airport

Because at the end of a 14hr duty day I like my job...that's why..:hmm:

SOP, rules, and regulations have made commercial aviation the success it currently is. To argue otherwise, to argue SOP are only for the NOOBs is BS. 81 percent of incidents between 1979 and 1994 had the Captain as PF. A statistic which should make thinking men think.

We have over 13,000 pilots at my carrier. There are over 2000 pilots on my fleet alone. Without SOP we would have 2000 independent operators.

I shake my head when I read stuff I have seen on this thread. Don't like your SOP, get it changed. Intentional SOP non compliance? There is a litany accidents attributed to that. A pilot killing him or herself because he or she is so stupid to think they know better than everyone else and intentionally violate SOP is unfortunate.

What pisses me off to high heaven is when they kill their passengers in the process of being so incredibly stupid.

A an C
The rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.
These are famous last words in many accidents. Unless you are a bird you are not wise in air since you have no instincts. When you abandon SOPs you are like a blind man in unknown territory.

I may have given the impression that I ignore the rules and SOPs relevant to my operation. I don't. But I'm very fortunate in so much that we can do most things because our SOPs (virtually the manufacturer's, word for word, including typos and spelling mistakes) are flexible enough to cover most things that we need to be able to do to fly safely and efficiently. But this flexibility also allows those with, shall we say 'less confidence', to take a more conservative approach (if that is the right word). I'm part of broad church - probably one with many gods. But it does work.

PM

I haven't read where anybody suggested breaking SOP.

At my airline we only fly A320s. Our SOP says to insert an "appropriate" number in the appropriate minimums field. On a visual that would mean leaving it blank. I fly with plenty of guys who put the ils mins there, which is "inappropriate" because we are not flying an ils.

And I hate the extra auto call outs. I don't need the airplane shouting things right before I land when I'd rather not miss ATC clearing an airplane to take off on an intersecting runway.

We fly visual approaches regularly at our home base. It is actively encouraged by our training dept. It pays off, because it adds confidence, which is something that is not measurable in dollars or euro's.
You can't buy confidence.
So. which main ports around the globe offer visual approaches on a regular basis?
Amsterdam
JFK
Copenhagen
Osaka Kansai

A 'visual approach' at my carrier has evolved into a self-positioned non-precision approach with a 'FAF' and a requirement to use the automatics until established on final approach and a minima 500' above AD elevation.

This has arguably come about because of so many 'ace pilots' mis-flying their visual approaches and setting off the EGPWS or contravening criterion of the OFDM, but it's also part of a forward-looking policy to have SOPs that cater for the lower level of hand flying experience in the flight deck.

Given that this is a civilian transport operation and not a Red Bull air-race, it's arguably an understandably cautious attitude by the airline. A catch-22 too. Less practice means less spatial awareness. Less spatial awareness leads to some people blindly trusting the instruments and FMC.

The visual approach can be a useful TEM tool. There may certain threats associated with a certain conventional IAP to the runway in use. Take EGPF rwy 23 for example - the terrain and subsequent MRVA means that radar vectoring can be quite precise, in particular the timings at which lower altitude clearances are given. All it takes is one long transmission on the freq and one may not receive clearance to descend and become rather high rather quickly. Subsequent ILS intercept inside the FAF and above the glideslope can and does happen. There is also the possibility of EGPWS warnings if one is working hard to recover the situation. A positive ISA deviation and temperature error in summer can also exacerbate the scenario. I have seen a variety of effective mitigation measures used by crews.

Another solution, however, is to avoid the threats altogether. Flying a visual approach to anywhere between a 3 to 6 mile final keeps one inside the terrain, and avoids the need to rely on lower radar altitudes. I find this is a useful way of selling the idea to a less confident crew member. This obviously requires the weather to be conducive, which I'll admit isn't a particularly common occurrence in this part of the world...

It seems now to be commonly agreed that non-precision approaches carry a higher degree of risk than an ILS. I find a visual approach is also a way of avoiding risk here - In my experience, attempting to predict FMC/FMGC behaviour, and hoping it does what you want it to do, involves reasonably high workload. What really saps capacity is when it doesn't go as planned, and (hopefully just) one head goes down in an attempt to recover the situation through the MCDU. This tends to lead to a loss of situational awareness in my experience. I find I use much less capacity by putting the aircraft where I want it to be by looking outside, or indeed monitoring my mate instead of pushing the wrong buttons!

Again, the weather must be conducive, but at somewhere like LFMN, for example, how often is one IMC at the FAF at 3000' only for the Airfield to appear before reaching MDA of 2000'? As for the other end - What's the point if flying down this (relatively) precise 3 degree approach only to level off before the final descent?

Surely the minima for a visual approach (if you want one) is when you become visual!

It does seem a mountain from a mole hill discussion. These comments relate to a normal IFR airline operation. I do appreciate, and have done many times, approaches into pure visual airfields with perhaps a cloud-break first.
If you are making a visual to a runway with an approach aid why NOT set the minima for that? You would have briefed before TOD and out of sight of the airfield, therefore would have briefed and set up for relevant approach.
If you are making a visual direct to a circling runway why NOT set circling minimum?
If you are making a pure visual why NOT set THR + 500' as a trigger for the stable/GA/continue decision point?

I don't understand guys wanting to overcomplicate a simple scenario. Do guys really re-set bugs during approach? If you are making a short turn visual onto a rwy with an ILS transmitting - for which you have the bugs and aids set up - is anybody going to change anything, or just fly the damn a/c?

I may qualify for the more "simple-minded" kind of guy someone else said before. If you're on a visual, well, fly visual for god's sake. We are flying airplanes with two pilots, one of them is supposed to monitor. If company policy is to be stable at 500' or 1000' AAL for visual (we use 1000), then the PM should be paying attention (even more below said height) the PF doesn't fly the aircraft out of stable approach. No need for minimums callouts or what have you. Even most airplanes will call out 1000 or 500 for you, it takes a special situation (or two special pilots) to miss that. No need to over-complicate things.

If you briefed for X approach and in the process of flying a visual you fly a self-vectored instrument approach (the one you just briefed) I guess it doesn't hurt to set the minimums for that approach. Even though it's absolutely irrelevant and doesn't help your cause as you should be visual (and stable) in most cases by that time, which I think is the criteria needed for a visual approach. It doesn't hurt doing it but I reckon it's as useless as men's nipples