Visual Approach

midlifeflyer

midlifeflyer

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
18,401
Location
KTTA, North Carolina
Display Name
Display name:
Fly
Over the past few years, I've seen all sorts of confusion over visual approaches. I know it's a topic that gets (almost?) no attention in training, but I'm at a loss to understand the confusion.

To me, a visual approach is what a student pilot does (IFR version is less restrictive). Special considerations for airline ops aside, what's the big deal?

(My post was triggered by a pilot saying in an online comment he would not descend below the MSA on a visual approach. I gave an example of an airport where the Sectional MEF for the route is 7,100 and the MSA 14,800. But it's not the only one by far.)
 
I dunno. They're a no brainer in my book. I only typically fly one at a towered airport when that's what they're using. At uncontrolled fields, when ATC asks what I want I'll say the visual if weather conditions permit, although I typically will cancel in the air once I have the field in sight, so I never actually fly it per se.
 
I don’t get the confusion if there is any. Used to be somewhat confusing on the ATC side some 30 + years ago when the overhead was considered a VA. That was clarified with a change in definition by the aircraft automatically become VFR at the initial. Before that there was confusion about maintaining visual separation with multiple overheads.

Years ago with non towered fields there was confusion as well as to the application of visual sep between multiple VAs inbound. FAA clarified that as well with a letter that essentially stated “one in, one out.” No visual sep allowed between multiples.

As far as being below the MSA, you can easily be vectored below the MSA for the visual. My old facility shows an MSA of 2400 but they have an MVA of 1500. Once cleared for the approach you can descend. Of course 91.119 still applies.

Possibly one more bit of confusion exists in the event of a go around. While it’s not a MA, the IFR flight plan still exists and unless the pilot cancels, the controller has to protect for that go around. Some controllers believe they can simply throw them into the tower pattern and cancel their IFR. Doesn’t work that way. There’s probably a 99% chance that pilot wants to cancel but they should still be afforded vectors for another VA if requested.

All the other stuff is pretty straight forward such as wx requirements and clearance.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
what's the big deal?
Click to expand...
As you said, the topic gets no attention in training. After passing the instrument practical test, the typical newly-rated pilot has just spent several months learning that getting close to a runway means flying a published instrument approach. Instrument training is quite different from real-world instrument flying, and unless the CFII conveys that to the students, I can see how they get confused over something as straightforward as visual approaches.

- Martin
 
With the exception of some practice approaches, visual approaches do not exist VFR.

A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing;

ATC is obliged to resolve potential conflicts with other aircraft (normally done by invoking visual separation procedures, but radar procedures especially when multiple runways are in use, are allowed).

There's no requirement for ATC to guard the "go around" (there's no missed approach procedure for visuals). It's up to the pilot to deal with the tower (if there is one) or remain in visual conditions and contact ATC if the landing can't be made.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Over the past few years, I've seen all sorts of confusion over visual approaches. I know it's a topic that gets (almost?) no attention in training, but I'm at a loss to understand the confusion.

To me, a visual approach is what a student pilot does (IFR version is less restrictive). Special considerations for airline ops aside, what's the big deal?

(My post was triggered by a pilot saying in an online comment he would not descend below the MSA on a visual approach. I gave an example of an airport where the Sectional MEF for the route is 7,100 and the MSA 14,800. But it's not the only one by far.)
Click to expand...
Just using the generic definition of visual does cause confusion. I would recommend not using the term ‘visual approach’ at all with student pilots. Or any non IR pilot. It has an explicit meaning in the aviation world. Many other ways to describe that you’ll be looking out the window and using your vision while approaching to land under VFR.
 
flyingron said:
With the exception of some practice approaches, visual approaches do not exist VFR.

A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing;

ATC is obliged to resolve potential conflicts with other aircraft (normally done by invoking visual separation procedures, but radar procedures especially when multiple runways are in use, are allowed).

There's no requirement for ATC to guard the "go around" (there's no missed approach procedure for visuals). It's up to the pilot to deal with the tower (if there is one) or remain in visual conditions and contact ATC if the landing can't be made.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, some of the underlying technicalities are different. You are still on an IFR flight plan. You only need to be clear of clouds and not follow VFR cloud clearance requirements. What to do if for some reason you go missed. And if you are IFR cleared for the visual to a nontowered airport, you still need to affirmatively cancel IFR.

But the questions and confusion I see repeatedly are not about those differences. The are about very basic descent and pattern entry procedures.

What do you see as the practical difference between "follow the 737. Cleared visual approach runway 5" and "follow the 737. Cleared to land runway 5" (which I received on my long student solo cross country into a Class C.
 
luvflyin said:
Just using the generic definition of visual does cause confusion. I would recommend not using the term ‘visual approach’ at all with student pilots. Or any non IR pilot. It has an explicit meaning in the aviation world. Many other ways to describe that you’ll be looking out the window and using your vision while approaching to land under VFR.
Click to expand...
Same comment and question I gave to Ron.

I'll add...

What is the practical difference in descending and landing between "cleared for the visual frequency change approved" to a nontowered airport and "IFR cancellation received, frequency change approved"?

I'm not suggesting using the term "visual approach" with VFR pilots. I'm talking about overcomplicating a simple instrument procedure.
 
Martin Pauly said:
As you said, the topic gets no attention in training. After passing the instrument practical test, the typical newly-rated pilot has just spent several months learning that getting close to a runway means flying a published instrument approach. Instrument training is quite different from real-world instrument flying, and unless the CFII conveys that to the students, I can see how they get confused over something as straightforward as visual approaches.

- Martin
Click to expand...
The comment I referred to was made by a CFII.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Same comment and question I gave to Ron.

I'll add...

What is the practical difference in descending and landing between "cleared for the visual frequency change approved" to a nontowered airport and "IFR cancellation received, frequency change approved"?

I'm not suggesting using the term "visual approach" with VFR pilots. I'm talking about overcomplicating a simple instrument procedure.
Click to expand...
Ok. I was keying in to this in your OP. “…To me, a visual approach is what a student pilot does…”
 
luvflyin said:
Ok. I was keying in to this in your OP. “…To me, a visual approach is what a student pilot does…”
Click to expand...
I was speaking practically from the instrument pilot perspective, not a technical terminology perspective.

Perhaps...

To me, the descent and landing when cleared for a visual approach is no different than what a student pilot does when approaching to land at an airport.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What do you see as the practical difference between "follow the 737. Cleared visual approach runway 5" and "follow the 737. Cleared to land runway 5" (which I received on my long student solo cross country into a Class C).
Click to expand...
The latter, if it's a VFR instruction, is often preceded by "make left/right traffic" or "make straight in". The former, not necessarily so, which happened into a class D the first time I got my IFR ticket wet.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well, yeah, some of the underlying technicalities are different. You are still on an IFR flight plan. You only need to be clear of clouds and not follow VFR cloud clearance requirements. What to do if for some reason you go missed. And if you are IFR cleared for the visual to a nontowered airport, you still need to affirmatively cancel IFR.

But the questions and confusion I see repeatedly are not about those differences. The are about very basic descent and pattern entry procedures.

What do you see as the practical difference between "follow the 737. Cleared visual approach runway 5" and "follow the 737. Cleared to land runway 5" (which I received on my long student solo cross country into a Class C.
Click to expand...
AIM 5-4-23 f.

EDIT: Practical difference? No. You follow that plane.
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
The latter, if it's a VFR instruction, is often preceded by "make left/right traffic" or "make straight in". The former, not necessarily so, which happened into a class D the first time I got my IFR ticket wet.
Click to expand...
In my experience, that depend more on the timing of the handoff. My long student solo, no entry instructions.
 
luvflyin said:
AIM 5-4-23 f.
Click to expand...
Nice reference. Informative.

A few of the clips from the mentioned reference. Worth reading the entire section, AIM 5-4-23 Visual Approach

A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport.
If the pilot has the airport in sight but cannot see the aircraft to be followed, ATC may clear the aircraft for a visual approach; however, ATC retains both separation and wake vortex separation responsibility.
A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment.
It is the pilot's responsibility to advise ATC as soon as possible if a visual approach is not desired.
Authorization to conduct a visual approach is an IFR authorization and does not alter IFR flight plan cancellation responsibility.
 
midlifeflyer said:
In my experience, that depend more on the timing of the handoff. My long student solo, no entry instructions.
Click to expand...
Well then, what did you do?

In my case, I was coming in from the north. My original plan if winds favored 36 was to overfly the airport, do the PT and shoot the the S-36 IAP. If winds favored 18, fly the S-18 IAP. Winds favored 36, so I took the visual thinking it was a shortcut. Traffic to follow (coincidentally a 737) was coming in from the south. I asked tower whether I should circle east or circle west and he sounded equally as confused as I. Eventually I figured out that 36 is right traffic so I did that.
 
Definition: (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-v.html)

VISUAL APPROACH- An approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and under the control of the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must be: ceiling at or above 1,000 feet, and visibility of 3 miles or greater.

AIM: 5-5-11

Visual Approach
  1. Pilot.
    1. If a visual approach is not desired, advises ATC.
    2. Complies with controller's instructions for vectors toward the airport of intended landing or to a visual position behind a preceding aircraft.
    3. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. After being cleared for a visual approach, proceed to the airport in a normal manner or follow the preceding aircraft. Remain clear of clouds while conducting a visual approach.
    4. If the pilot accepts a visual approach clearance to visually follow a preceding aircraft, you are required to establish a safe landing interval behind the aircraft you were instructed to follow. You are responsible for wake turbulence separation.
    5. Advise ATC immediately if the pilot is unable to continue following the preceding aircraft, cannot remain clear of clouds, needs to climb, or loses sight of the airport.
    6. In the event of a go-around, the pilot is responsible to maintain terrain and obstruction avoidance until reaching an ATC assigned altitude if issued.
    7. Be aware that radar service is automatically terminated, without being advised by ATC, when the pilot is instructed to change to advisory frequency.
    8. Be aware that there may be other traffic in the traffic pattern and the landing sequence may differ from the traffic sequence assigned by approach control or ARTCC.
 
flyingron said:
With the exception of some practice approaches, visual approaches do not exist VFR.

A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing;

ATC is obliged to resolve potential conflicts with other aircraft (normally done by invoking visual separation procedures, but radar procedures especially when multiple runways are in use, are allowed).

There's no requirement for ATC to guard the "go around" (there's no missed approach procedure for visuals). It's up to the pilot to deal with the tower (if there is one) or remain in visual conditions and contact ATC if the landing can't be made.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of “guard.” Guard as in protecting the airspace for a go around whether it be to the tower or back to radar, the controller responsible for IFR separation is definitely guarding for that.

There used to be a problem years ago in that controllers were misinterpreting their obligation in providing separation for a VA go around. The .65 used to state for a go around “appropriate separation must be provided.” That was all. Well, a lot controllers interpreted that statement as a VFR go around and appropriate separation will vary depending on airspace. A rewrite to the .65 was done years ago to clarify the matter. It now states “appropriate IFR separation must be provided…” It further goes into the two situations of whether the go around is sent to tower pattern remaining IFR or cancelling, or provided specific instructions by ATC. Why is the distinction important? There’s a world of difference between IFR to IFR aircraft sep and VFR to IFR aircraft sep.
 
Last edited:
Martin Pauly said:
As you said, the topic gets no attention in training. After passing the instrument practical test, the typical newly-rated pilot has just spent several months learning that getting close to a runway means flying a published instrument approach. Instrument training is quite different from real-world instrument flying, and unless the CFII conveys that to the students, I can see how they get confused over something as straightforward as visual approaches.

- Martin
Click to expand...
This. You fly dozens of approaches to the MAP and occasionally land from there. You fly a few circling approaches where you maneuver a bit. But I suspect the average instrument student doesn't fly any "cleared for the visual" approaches with a CFII on board. And the above-average student who does fly a few of those probably did so at a non-towered field. Then we fly the check ride with those same parameters (because, if they were different, so would be the training).

And then we fly our first real-world IFR flight, hear "cleared visual approach, contact the tower," and have no experience or training on which to draw. Do they want me to fly straight-in? Overhead break? Circle around the field at circling minimums for some random approach? Enter a downwind for the opposite-direction runway? Cross midfield and enter downwind left traffic for the perpendicular runway or just enter on a right base?

At a non-towered airport, I think it's easier because you're already kind of used to mixing in with traffic to safely get on the ground. But I think there is plenty of confusion about what to do with "cleared visual approach, contact the tower," and it all goes back to the simple fact that this is a 90%-probability event that instrument students receive 0% training on. That was my personal experience and I know I'm not alone.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But the questions and confusion I see repeatedly are not about those differences. The are about very basic descent and pattern entry procedures.

What do you see as the practical difference between "follow the 737. Cleared visual approach runway 5" and "follow the 737. Cleared to land runway 5" (which I received on my long student solo cross country into a Class C.
Click to expand...

Practically speaking, no difference. You still need to watch for traffic and enter the pattern to blend with other traffic, or follow ATC instructions.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What do you see as the practical difference between "follow the 737. Cleared visual approach runway 5" and "follow the 737. Cleared to land runway 5" (which I received on my long student solo cross country into a Class C.
Click to expand...
Following another plane is easy. Being the lead plane is where it gets confusing. Because we are never taught the difference between "cleared visual approach runway 5" and "enter left downwind runway 5." And nobody, especially a low-time pilot with a fresh instrument rating, wants to do the opposite of what ATC expects. (We also don't train student pilots enough that they can ask ATC for clarification, but that's a separate topic.)
 
There would be a lot less confusion if pilots read the previously posted AIM references as well as 14 CFR 91.126 through 91.131.

Even better if the CFIs and CFIIs taught those sections to their private and instrument students, as applicable.
 
luvflyin said:
What did they say on initial contact?
Click to expand...
It was 33 years ago... Approach vectored me to where they wanted me. Asked me if I had the "37" in sight. When I said yes, they told me to follow it and handed me off to tower.

It was a highlight of my training. "How cool!" was my main thought. Maybe that's why I don't understand instrument pilot issues with it. It was sooooo easy.
 
iamtheari said:
And then we fly our first real-world IFR flight, hear "cleared visual approach, contact the tower," and have no experience or training on which to draw. Do they want me to fly straight-in? Overhead break? Circle around the field at circling minimums for some random approach? Enter a downwind for the opposite-direction runway? Cross midfield and enter downwind left traffic for the perpendicular runway or just enter on a right base?
Click to expand...
Everytime I've been given the visual at a towered field and check on with the tower with "N123 visual rwy 4" tower has given me some kind of instruction as to what they want me to do- enter left downwind, right base, follow traffic, etc. But yes for a new IFR pilot can be confusing. Especially when you are handed off to tower at 3000'AGL on the downwind cleared for the visual because approach wanted to keep you high over the adjacent military field.
 
iamtheari said:
Following another plane is easy. Being the lead plane is where it gets confusing.
Click to expand...
What? You are on long final and think thinking overhead break? Or abeam the runway on a wide midfield downwind and thinking, they must want me to cross to the other side"?

I really don't see it. So far anyway, I've never been cleared for the visual - towered or not - when it wasn't either completely obvious what to do or given an additional instruction (I've gotten "contact tower and report left downwind") but maybe I'm missing some complication others have come across.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What? You are on long final and think thinking overhead break? Or abeam the runway on a wide midfield downwind and thinking, they must want me to cross to the other side"?

I really don't see it. So far anyway, I've never been cleared for the visual - towered or not - when it wasn't either completely obvious what to do or given an additional instruction (I've gotten "contact tower and report left downwind") but maybe I'm missing some complication others have come across.
Click to expand...
What's obvious to you may not be obvious to a newer pilot with a fresh instrument rating. How common is the story about a private pilot candidate having the engine "fail" on his check ride, perfectly completing the checklist and lining up to land on a road or grassy field, only to have the examiner say "You did fine, but next time you might consider landing on the runway we were directly above when the engine failed"? "Cleared visual approach" is the instrument version of that story.
 
iamtheari said:
What's obvious to you may not be obvious to a newer pilot with a fresh instrument rating. How common is the story about a private pilot candidate having the engine "fail" on his check ride, perfectly completing the checklist and lining up to land on a road or grassy field, only to have the examiner say "You did fine, but next time you might consider landing on the runway we were directly above when the engine failed"? "Cleared visual approach" is the instrument version of that story.
Click to expand...
Who could be that stoopid. Oh wait. Yeah, I did that. :sigh:
 
midlifeflyer said:
It was 33 years ago... Approach vectored me to where they wanted me. Asked me if I had the "37" in sight. When I said yes, they told me to follow it and handed me off to tower.
Click to expand...
Were you at the 737's 6 o'clock at the time? We're you approaching the runway on a 45? That would be obvious for a VFR pilot what to do. Less obvious is if the 737 is on final and you are aligned on the departure end of the runway facing the opposite direction of final. For a student pilot, maybe less obvious if approaching the runway from the right and it's designated right traffic.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I was speaking practically from the instrument pilot perspective, not a technical terminology perspective.

Perhaps...

To me, the descent and landing when cleared for a visual approach is no different than what a student pilot does when approaching to land at an airport.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. A student pilot approaching to land and an airplane is supposed to enter the standard VFR pattern. An IFR aircraft on a visual approach is not expected to fly a downwind/base/final pattern. Most times they are straight in for a ways out.
 
Is this why garmin 355 auto switches to visual approach when I get near an airport and haven’t loaded an IFR approach? IOW dude load an approach or you’re vfr or if IFR you better have clearance
 
If you think the visual is misunderstood, you should look at contact approaches. It took actually doing one for me to understand what it was and it's use.
 
midwestpa24 said:
If you think the visual is misunderstood, you should look at contact approaches. It took actually doing one for me to understand what it was and it's use.
Click to expand...
Contact approaches are rare. Visual approaches are commonplace.

Not yours, but several comments are making me understand why some find it confusing :(
 
Larry in TN said:
Do you have an FAR reference for that?
Click to expand...

Visual approach is started from where ever the pilot states that the field is in sight and the controller clears them for the visual. Go get cleared for one, and enter a normal pattern at a tower field and see what happens. :D I have been cleared for a visual at 3,000 feet above field elevation abeam the end of the runway when being vectored for an ILS. I could see the airport, accept the visual and aford flying out 10 miles to join the ILS and fly 10 miles back. Definitely NOT a student pilot approach.

VFR traffic patterns are in the AIM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top