"Going for the Visual"

Newps wrote in message news:ol2ec.8025$wP1.27020@attbi_s54...
You must either see the airport or the preceding aircraft. In the real
world it is only a tiny percentage of aircraft that get a visual
approach and don't have the airport in sight but are following another
aircraft.

We're not following another aircraft.

Here in Billings we give a lot of visual approach clearances
on initial contact because the pilot calls the airport in sight 40 miles
out.

(wolf whistle) Nice.

Here in the midwest, we get a lot of summer wx where there's not a
cloud in the sky and the vis is nominally VFR -- at least you can
make out airports which are 3 miles away by GPS. But it's really
flight by reference to instruments. The forward vis is nil.
And once one starts a descent, the radius shrinks. Practically
speaking, I'm not going to see the airport until I'm practically
flying over it, yet there's no question whatsoever about my
ability to land there under VFR.

Are you saying that the center, for no apparent reason, is just
giving you a visual approach clearance without you first calling the
airport in sight?

The latter (vis approach clearance without me first calling the
airport in sight), but not the former. At the MIA, both radar
and radio reception will be tenuous -- and at an airport with no
IAP there's no requirement to assure radio reception at a given
altitude as there is with, for example, a MAHP. Operationally,
there are several apparent reasons why it's probably helpful to
go ahead and issue the clearance.

Cheers,
Sydney

Snowbird wrote:

We're not following another aircraft.

Then you decline the visual.



Here in Billings we give a lot of visual approach clearances
on initial contact because the pilot calls the airport in sight 40 miles
out.


(wolf whistle) Nice.

Here in the midwest, we get a lot of summer wx where there's not a
cloud in the sky and the vis is nominally VFR -- at least you can
make out airports which are 3 miles away by GPS. But it's really
flight by reference to instruments. The forward vis is nil.
And once one starts a descent, the radius shrinks. Practically
speaking, I'm not going to see the airport until I'm practically
flying over it, yet there's no question whatsoever about my
ability to land there under VFR.

That's why we no longer live in the midwest. Every day that it's not
snowing the vis is over 100 miles.



Are you saying that the center, for no apparent reason, is just
giving you a visual approach clearance without you first calling the
airport in sight?


The latter (vis approach clearance without me first calling the
airport in sight), but not the former. At the MIA, both radar
and radio reception will be tenuous -- and at an airport with no
IAP there's no requirement to assure radio reception at a given
altitude as there is with, for example, a MAHP. Operationally,
there are several apparent reasons why it's probably helpful to
go ahead and issue the clearance.

Operationally it's not legal to give a clearance in that situation. You
should decline the clearance.

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

The latter (vis approach clearance without me first calling the
airport in sight), but not the former. At the MIA, both radar
and radio reception will be tenuous -- and at an airport with no
IAP there's no requirement to assure radio reception at a given
altitude as there is with, for example, a MAHP. Operationally,
there are several apparent reasons why it's probably helpful to
go ahead and issue the clearance.

I have to agree that center is incorrect in giving a clearance for a visual
when you don't have the airport in sight. A cruise clearance would be more
appropriate. OTOH, once you receive the clearance, it's not your
responsibility to worry about the legality of ATC issuing it. The only
problem can be that you can't find the airport, or not see the airport when
you get to it. Then you have to get a clearance for an approach, and
center will have to come up with something. You can always request a
cruise clearance. Center may or may not issue it, but it's perfectly OK to
ask for one at any time.

--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell wrote in message ...

I have to agree that center is incorrect in giving a clearance for a visual
when you don't have the airport in sight. A cruise clearance would be more
appropriate. OTOH, once you receive the clearance, it's not your
responsibility to worry about the legality of ATC issuing it. The only
problem can be that you can't find the airport, or not see the airport when
you get to it. Then you have to get a clearance for an approach, and
center will have to come up with something. You can always request a
cruise clearance. Center may or may not issue it, but it's perfectly OK to
ask for one at any time.

I think that's likely what we'll do next time.

I make no bones about declining a visual approach if I have any doubts
about my ability to remain clear of clouds and find the airport. Even
if I'm having my arm twisted really really hard by ATC. If I have such
doubts I'll be amending my destination to one which has an SIAP.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread (maybe it has been
and I missed it) is that a visual approach explicitly has no missed
approach segment and IMO the pilot has to consider this carefully when
making a decision as to whether or not to accept a visual approach.
If one isn't able to complete the visual, instructions are "remain
clear of clouds and contact ATC". There are plenty of places we've
met where this can put the pilot in a cleft stick, if he accepts the
visual and in fact can't make it in -- stuck at an altitude where
radio reception is tenuous or where a long wait may be necessary in
order to clear the pilot under non-radar rules.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
[snipped]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread (maybe it has been
and I missed it) is that a visual approach explicitly has no missed
approach segment and IMO the pilot has to consider this carefully when
making a decision as to whether or not to accept a visual approach.
If one isn't able to complete the visual, instructions are "remain
clear of clouds and contact ATC". There are plenty of places we've
met where this can put the pilot in a cleft stick, if he accepts the
visual and in fact can't make it in -- stuck at an altitude where
radio reception is tenuous or where a long wait may be necessary in
order to clear the pilot under non-radar rules.


Sydney, to me this paragraph of yours illustrates why it is legally
important for the pilot to first report sighting the airfield (or aircraft
to follow etc) before ATC issues a visual apprach clearance. A remote
Visual Approach clearance issued way before you see the airport, followed by
lost comm and lost radar as you descend trying to find it, just doesn't
sound like positive IFR air traffic control to me. At ZTL, the controller
(if caught, which is a big IF) would be credited with an operational error.
Sadly, an FAA controller OE investigation would likely come only after the
NTSB crash site investigation was completed... too late to do the pilot any
good.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message link.net...
"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
[snipped]
One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread (maybe it has been
and I missed it) is that a visual approach explicitly has no missed
approach segment and IMO the pilot has to consider this carefully when
making a decision as to whether or not to accept a visual approach.
If one isn't able to complete the visual, instructions are "remain
clear of clouds and contact ATC". There are plenty of places we've
met where this can put the pilot in a cleft stick, if he accepts the
visual and in fact can't make it in -- stuck at an altitude where
radio reception is tenuous or where a long wait may be necessary in
order to clear the pilot under non-radar rules.

Sydney, to me this paragraph of yours illustrates why it is legally
important for the pilot to first report sighting the airfield (or aircraft
to follow etc) before ATC issues a visual apprach clearance. A remote
Visual Approach clearance issued way before you see the airport, followed by
lost comm and lost radar as you descend trying to find it, just doesn't
sound like positive IFR air traffic control to me. At ZTL, the controller
(if caught, which is a big IF) would be credited with an operational error.
Sadly, an FAA controller OE investigation would likely come only after the
NTSB crash site investigation was completed... too late to do the pilot any
good.

Chip, excellent points. However, I'm not sure to what extent the
legally correct alternative (a 'cruise clearance') provides more
positive IFR traffic control in the situation I'm considering
(plane flying into rural airport with no IAP, pilot planning to
conduct visual approach procedure). In both cases I would assume
the prudent controller is going to maintain IFR separation until
the flight plan has been cancelled through FSS.

In both cases, as far as I can tell, the burden of safe operation
really remains with the pilot -- to be jolly darn sure there really
is a safe margin to operate in visual conditions at the MIA for
the area and to have a good procedure worked out to climb back to
the MIA and resume communications with ATC if for any reason the
landing can not be made (fog forming over the airport, say).

If the pilot crashed, the real operational error IMO would be the
pilot's, for using a visual approach as an excuse to operate in
marginal conditions and for not flight-planning the "alternative
if the flight can not be completed as planned". (I don't want
to incite a scud-running vs. IFR debate here, but I think everyone
will agree that scud-running is something which requires
a much higher degree of planning and situational awareness to
conduct with any margin of safety -- not something to blunder
into without planning at the end of a flight in the clear-blue
over a layer).

Best,
Sydney

Stan Gosnell wrote:
I have to agree that center is incorrect in giving a clearance for a visual
when you don't have the airport in sight.

I've always figured, "cleared visual" is just a shorthand way of
avoiding the following conversation: "Report the airport in sight",
"Field in sight", The visual approach is available if you'd like it",
"Request visual", "Cleared visual approach". It's one transmission
instead of five, and while it may not meet the letter of the law, it's
pretty unlikely to cause any confusion or harm.

On the other hand, I've had NY Approach trying hard to sell me a visual
when I was in solid IMC. I can only assume that based on the best
weather information the controller had, he thought things were better
than they really were. For all I know, the guy in front of me was in a
hurry, didn't mind cheating, and gave a bogus pirep to approach to get
in faster.

So, I think the bottom line is if you're offered a visual and you don't
think it makes sense, simply follow Nancy Reagan's advice: 'Just say
"No"'.

Roy Smith wrote in
:

I've always figured, "cleared visual" is just a shorthand way of
avoiding the following conversation: "Report the airport in sight",
"Field in sight", The visual approach is available if you'd like it",
"Request visual", "Cleared visual approach". It's one transmission
instead of five, and while it may not meet the letter of the law, it's
pretty unlikely to cause any confusion or harm.

What I normally hear is "Airport 12 o'clock and 10 miles, report it in
sight". When I do report the airport in sight, I get a clearance for a
visual approach. If I'm still in IMC when I receive the first
transmission, I tell approach that I am and what approach I want.
Technically, it's not legal for the controller to clear you for a visual
until you report the airport in sight. The fact that some do doesn't
legalize it, but I'm sure it still happens, likely more in some places than
others. I've never had it happen down here.

--
Regards,

Stan