"Going for the Visual"

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message =
ink.net...
=20
"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
...

Case of airport OR runway:
At big places like KIAD and CYYZ,
it's easy to have a runway in sight, but not the whole airport.
Been there, done that.
Probably the same at KDFW and KDEN, too.
=20
There's no requirement to see the whole airport.
=20
Clearly so. That's what I tried to say..
---JRC---

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
(Snowbird) wrote
Well, there isn't an SIAP and IIRC one can't fly a contact approach
to an airport without an SIAP.

You recall correctly. The visual is the only choice here.

But otherwise, I think you've got a great point. A cruise clearance
would accomplish exactly what we both want, and be perfectly legal.

OK, now ask yourself why you weren't issued a cruise clearance, when
that's the legal way of accomplishing what you both want. Some
suggested answers:

(a) The controller is ornery and likes breaking the rules
(b) The controller doesn't care about rules and can't be bothered to
do anything differently.
(c) The controller doesn't believe in cruise clearances
(d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances

Which do YOU think is correct?


I say "d" with a twist: The controller knows there is something in the book
about a cruise clearance, but doesn't know how a cruise clearance works.
This seems most likely to me, since the controller also doesn't know how a
visual approach works either...

Chip, ZTL

"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

Since this topic is being beat into submission as usual, I'll
add a pet peeve of a lot of controllers I know, myself included:

N1234: "airport in sight"
controller: "cleared visual approach"
N1234: "roger, we'll cancel IFR"

This happens daily, why? What is the point in reporting the airport
and a) not requesting the visual, if it's wanted, or, b) canceling in
the first transmission if the visual isn't wanted? Someone brought
up wasted transmissions, there's an example.

Speaking of wasted transmissions, and someone used the example
of five transmissions to get the Visual approach sequence rolling,
the controller who will be issuing the approach should on initial
call-in advise of what to expect. This should make it clearer
and what's expected of the pilot later. Example:
"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray
and the airport in sight" (technically now I guess we have to say
the name of the airport and it's position - is it done? not often)
Anyway, that transmission sure shouldn't leave much doubt in
anyone's mind. It's also a good time if the pilot is requesting something
other than that.

Cruise Clearances: the reason it's not used much and rarely offered,
here anyway, is terrain and radio/radar coverage. It's basically
a block altitude from whatever you give away, to the ground, and
if it doesn't work out, back up to whatever altitude you assign. That's
one hell of a chunk of airspace to lock up. And you are never sure
how long you are really giving it away for as you may not hear the
aircraft cancel. Also things not used often or on a regular basis,
controllers get rusty on, let's be honest.
Contact Approaches: Read last sentence, just not requested enough
and pilots and controllers both get rusty on it. Example: had a guy
ask for one at an airport with no SIAP, another one asked for one
where the tower said they were totally IFR less than a mile visibility,
virtually impossible to accomplish. On the controller side, you'll see
the "standby" as they ask their supervisor if/how to do it.
Some observations,
Chris

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:48:17 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote:

"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray
and the airport in sight"

Why not just: "N5843Q, expect visual runway 32"?

It's shorter and conveys the same information and (implied) request.

Even better is when the "visual" is on an ATIS, if available.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Chip Jones" wrote
(d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances

I say "d" with a twist: The controller knows there is something in the book
about a cruise clearance, but doesn't know how a cruise clearance works.

I agree. This is exactly what I'm talking about - he knows that
cruise clearances exist - meaning he heard the term somewhere,
probably in training - but he doesn't actually know anything ABOUT
cruise clearances, in the sense that he would be able to use them.

This seems most likely to me, since the controller also doesn't know how a
visual approach works either...

I think that's a bit unfair. He probably issues visual approaches
properly under normal circumstances. This is a special circumstance.
He COULD be an ass about it - keep the plane at an altitude high
enough to assure radio comms and force the pilot to accept the
resulting slam dunk - or cancel IFR. Instead, he's doing what makes
sense. The problem is that he doesn't know the correct phraseology to
accomplish this, and as a result he's breaking regs because he doesn't
know the correct magic word to use.

Are the regs unnecessarily complicated? This is a guy who talks to
airplanes issuing instructions and clearances 40+ hours a week, every
week. If he can't keep all the regs straight, what sort of chance
does a weekend pilot have?

Michael

(Snowbird) wrote:
(around 3500 ft)
"Grumman 123, radar contact lost, you are cleared for the
visual approach into Podunk, no observed traffic between
you and the airport, change to advisory approved, report
cancellation with Flight Service"

I was just re-reading some back postings in this thread and something
struck me odd about the above. If the radar coverage floor is 3500, how
could there *possibly* be any observed traffic between you and the
airport.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote
"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray
and the airport in sight"

Why not just: "N5843Q, expect visual runway 32"?
It's shorter and conveys the same information and (implied) request.

It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items:
that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport
in sight.

Even better is when the "visual" is on an ATIS, if available.

Can skip that info if pilot advises he has the ATIS, but since the
rule says the controller shall advise of the approach on initial
contact or as soon as possible thereafter, the pilot has to advise
of the ATIS on his initial contact. Most airports I do approaches
to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point.

See 7110.65 Par 4-7-10
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0407.html#4-7-1

4-7-10. APPROACH INFORMATION

a. Both en route and terminal approach control sectors shall provide
current approach information to aircraft destined to airports for which they
provide approach control services. This information shall be provided on
initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter. Approach information
contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if the pilot states the
appropriate ATIS code or items 3-5 below may be omitted for pilots destined
to uncontrolled airports when they advise receipt of the automated weather;
otherwise, issue approach information by including the following:

1. Approach clearance or type approach to be expected if two or more
approaches are published and the clearance limit does not indicate which
will be used.

2. Runway if different from that to which the instrument approach is
made.

3. Surface wind.

4. Ceiling and visibility if the reported ceiling at the airport of
intended landing is below 1,000 feet or below the highest circling minimum,
whichever is greater, or the visibility is less than 3 miles.

5. Altimeter setting for the airport of intended landing.


Chris

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
link.net...

It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items:
that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport
in sight.


How are you going to know the current weather at fields without weather
reporting?



Can skip that info if pilot advises he has the ATIS, but since the
rule says the controller shall advise of the approach on initial
contact or as soon as possible thereafter, the pilot has to advise
of the ATIS on his initial contact. Most airports I do approaches
to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point.

See 7110.65 Par 4-7-10
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0407.html#4-7-1

4-7-10. APPROACH INFORMATION

a. Both en route and terminal approach control sectors shall provide
current approach information to aircraft destined to airports for which
they
provide approach control services. This information shall be provided on
initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter. Approach information
contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if the pilot states the
appropriate ATIS code or items 3-5 below may be omitted for pilots
destined
to uncontrolled airports when they advise receipt of the automated
weather;
otherwise, issue approach information by including the following:

1. Approach clearance or type approach to be expected if two or more
approaches are published and the clearance limit does not indicate which
will be used.

2. Runway if different from that to which the instrument approach is
made.

3. Surface wind.

4. Ceiling and visibility if the reported ceiling at the airport of
intended landing is below 1,000 feet or below the highest circling
minimum,
whichever is greater, or the visibility is less than 3 miles.

5. Altimeter setting for the airport of intended landing.


I'm going to an uncontrolled field without weather reporting. How are you
going to comply with that paragraph?

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in
link.net:

Cruise Clearances: the reason it's not used much and rarely offered,
here anyway, is terrain and radio/radar coverage. It's basically
a block altitude from whatever you give away, to the ground, and
if it doesn't work out, back up to whatever altitude you assign.
That's one hell of a chunk of airspace to lock up. And you are never
sure how long you are really giving it away for as you may not hear
the aircraft cancel. Also things not used often or on a regular
basis, controllers get rusty on, let's be honest.

Anyone gets rusty on things they don't do. The ZHU controllers tend to
stay up on cruise clearances because they issue them all the time. It's
the only way things can get done out in the Gulf, because of lack of radar
and radio coverage. We go out IFR and fly instrument approaches to
offshore platforms, and our letters of agreement with ZHU say that we
'shall' request a cruise clearance when within 40NM of our destination.
(Whoever wrote that LOA didn't know the legal meaning of 'shall',
obviously, since it's used many times when the context makes it obvious it
should be 'will' or 'should'). It does tie up lots of airspace, but there
is just no other way of doing it, with the current equipment situation.
Everyone tries to cooperate by cancelling as soon as possible, and we all
have company comm centers which can call center for us and cancel when we
lose comm with ATC. I've never received a cruise clearance inbound,
though.

--
Regards,

Stan