Visual Approaches

Flying_Goat said:
Who said anything about being confused? Who said anything about complicating it? The question is what tower/approach expecting to see so that I may fly predictably in the context of other IFR and VFR traffic out there.
Click to expand...
Trying to anticipate the myriad of potential flight profiles that an ATC controller might be "expecting" is complicating the matter.

ATC expects you to fly a normal approach, so just do that. Yes, there are many ways to fly a "normal approach," so fly the approach that works best for you under the circumstances. You know, pilot stuff.

Here's another way to look at it: When you are the PIC, YOU are the PIC. When you acknowledge a clearance for a visual approach, your clearance grants you authorization to proceed via own navigation, either to the runway or to follow other traffic to the runway. It's up to you--not ATC--to figure out how to fly your airplane to the touchdown zone. Be the Captain.
 
M20K said:
You are still "IFR" unless you cancelled for some reason when they gave you the Visual Approach. So yes, you just need to not go into the clouds if you were "Cleared for the Visual Approach." But "VFR" cloud separation is not a concern since you're still IFR.

Similar to a Contact Approach, but with the Visual, you must see the Airport, not just the ground or the aircraft in front of you.
Click to expand...
Well technically if going into a towered field and they’re going to the same runway, all you need is to see the aircraft you’re following. ATC can clear ya for the visual based on that.
 
I always find it interesting when they get the terrain alert in the tower cab and say “Nxxx check your altitude immediately…. Blah blah..”. When you’re on a visual.

I mean… it’s a _visual_.
 
RussR said:
The funny to me is that, while visual approaches are not on the instrument rating checkride, they are on every one of my Part 135 initial and recurrent checkrides in the sim. They usually get combined with a flaps failure and a PAPI failure for some reason, but they are a checkride item every time.
Click to expand...
Well, the reason is because of the name of the maneuver… “no-flap visual.” ;)

Under 61 or 142, the no-flap is an instrument approach now, btw. The verbiage of the ATP ACS dictates that, but the verbiage somewhere in the 8900 makes it a visual for 135 checks.
 
dans2992 said:
I always find it interesting when they get the terrain alert in the tower cab and say “Nxxx check your altitude immediately…. Blah blah..”. When you’re on a visual.

I mean… it’s a _visual_.
Click to expand...
Windows work the same on a visual approach as they do on the visual segment of an instrument approach, and from where they’re sitting, ATC can’t tell if you’re using them properly.

We only have to go back to February to find someone who flew into terrain on a visual segment.
 
Roger Wilco said:
Trying to anticipate the myriad of potential flight profiles that an ATC controller might be "expecting" is complicating the matter.

ATC expects you to fly a normal approach, so just do that. Yes, there are many ways to fly a "normal approach," so fly the approach that works best for you under the circumstances. You know, pilot stuff.
Click to expand...
This!

If ATC needs you to fly a particular path for the visual, they will tell you that. Otherwise, the clearance for the visual removes any altitude restrictions and lets you maneuver as you'd like for landing, within reason. If you're going to do something that might be considered unusual (turning away from the airport, 360s, etc) then be sure you're keeping them up to date as there may be traffic following you.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Windows work the same on a visual approach as they do on the visual segment of an instrument approach, and from where they’re sitting, ATC can’t tell if you’re using them properly.

We only have to go back to February to find someone who flew into terrain on a visual segment.
Click to expand...
How far away from terrain do I need to be so the alert doesn’t trigger?

At night, I’ll take all the help I can get. During CAVU VMC…. I likely do see the mountain.
 
Flying_Goat said:
Who said anything about being confused? Who said anything about complicating it? The question is what tower/approach expecting to see so that I may fly predictably in the context of other IFR and VFR traffic out there.
Click to expand...
All the questions about a task explainable in one sentence suggest confusion and over-complication.

“After being cleared for a visual approach, proceed to the airport in a normal manner or follow the preceding aircraft.”

That’s it. Toss in any scenario you want and that’s it. ATC wants something different, they’ll tell you. You want to do something different, like fly the full procedure or continue in a base leg rather than “to the airport” from your present position “in a normal manner,” ask for it.
 
Last edited:
Roger Wilco said:
Trying to anticipate the myriad of potential flight profiles that an ATC controller might be "expecting" is complicating the matter.

ATC expects you to fly a normal approach, so just do that. Yes, there are many ways to fly a "normal approach," so fly the approach that works best for you under the circumstances. You know, pilot stuff.

Here's another way to look at it: When you are the PIC, YOU are the PIC. When you acknowledge a clearance for a visual approach, your clearance grants you authorization to proceed via own navigation, either to the runway or to follow other traffic to the runway. It's up to you--not ATC--to figure out how to fly your airplane to the touchdown zone. Be the Captain.
Click to expand...
But…but…but… It’s an instrument procedure. It has to be complicated! It can’t possibly be as easy as a soloing student arriving at a towered airport!
 
midlifeflyer said:
But…but…but… It’s an instrument procedure. It has to be complicated! It can’t possibly be as easy as a soloing student arriving at a towered airport!
Click to expand...
But I'm 90 degrees from the runway and approaching from the opposite side of the downwind pattern leg. :)
 
asicer said:
But I'm 90 degrees from the runway and approaching from the opposite side of the downwind pattern leg. :)
Click to expand...
Are you are thinking of that time there was a video or something involving a student pilot who got completely flummoxed on a solo cross country when the tower said "make right downwind" because the AFD said the runway was left traffic? :eek:"Opposite side of the downwind pattern" is irrelevant at a towered airport.

And it's not like Towers don't give instructions. Maybe that's one of the things missing from the discussion? Approach is clearing you for a visual approach, not a landing. Unless VFR conditions are very marginal, the most likely scenario is that you are going to have to mix with VFR traffic and the Tower will tell you what to do you unless you are already on some leg of a pattern or straight in and there is no conflict. Just had one of those a few months ago. Cleared for the visual. Plenty of VFR traffic (it was CRG in Florida). I contacted Tower, reporting on the visual, and Tower told me to make left base for runway 5 and report traffic on final in sight. (Just as though I were a student pilot.)
 
Flying_Goat said:
Thanks. I have definitely learned something here.
Click to expand...
That’s the point. I’m wondering about some things. You said you were at the IAF and got cleared for the Visual Approach. What led up to that. Had you previously been told to expect the RNAV Approach? What was your last clearance received before this happened? Which Approach was it? What airport did this happen at? What was the weather?
 
Kritchlow said:
40 years flying professionally and doing thousands of visual approaches during those years.

I was never confused….. until reading this thread.
Click to expand...
Kritchlow said:
40 years flying professionally and doing thousands of visual approaches during those years.

I was never confused….. until reading this thread.
Click to expand...
1792758625609.jpeg
 
luvflyin said:
Did your companies require you to have an Approach loaded when doing Visuals?
Click to expand...
At the companies I work for it was required. We still had planes while on a visual either land or do approaches to the wrong airport because they ignored the loaded backup.
 
jayhawk74 said:
At the companies I work for it was required. We still had planes while on a visual either land or do approaches to the wrong airport because they ignored the loaded backup.
Click to expand...
That could save the day. If there is an Approach to the Runway. More than once a plane doing the Visual to RW15 at Burbank KBUR, mistook Whiteman KWHP for BUR. One, it was a Continental 727 if recall correctly got pretty darn low before the Tower saw it and warned him. This was before there was a Tower at WHP.
 
luvflyin said:
What about Visuals to a Runway that did not have any IAP’s. Would you have to load an Approach to another runway at that airport?
Click to expand...
That was an option, but generally we would build an approach to the runway.

That said, there were very few runways we used that did not have an approach.
 
luvflyin said:
What about Visuals to a Runway that did not have any IAP’s. Would you have to load an Approach to another runway at that airport?
Click to expand...
With the FMS you'd build an approach by extending the runway centerline, usually 5.0 miles, and specifying a 3.00° glidepath.

The guidance is that you have to load/tune an approach when one is available as a backup to the visual approach.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’m thinking most pilots draw a blank on this one. ;)

91.129(e)(2)
Click to expand...
Ah. Even though the runways we’re taking about aren’t “…served by an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance…” building an Approach with FMS, or a GPS Navigator would ‘reflect’ the intent.
 
Having and electronic course and glidepath, whether it be from a published approaches or an extended runway, is very helpful in larger, faster, airplanes for energy management and recognizing deviations sooner. It also goes a long way to prevent lining up with the wrong runway.
 
luvflyin said:
Ah. Even though the runways we’re taking about aren’t “…served by an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance…” building an Approach with FMS, or a GPS Navigator would ‘reflect’ the intent.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure those are the runways we’re talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top