Visual Reference to Terrain

[Tomato]

Usually I've heard "cleared for the visual approach" and for the past couple afternoons I've heard "visual reference to terrain" - are these the same, or different things?  If different, what does the latter mean, exactly? 

[w0x0f]

Usually I've heard "cleared for the visual approach" and for the past couple afternoons I've heard "visual reference to terrain" - are these the same, or different things?  If different, what does the latter mean, exactly? 

These terms are not the same.  Visual reference to terrain means being able to see the ground.  This is usually used in response to a controller asking if the pilot has the airport in sight.  A clue that a lower altitude would help matters.  The pilot could be cruising in the base of the clouds.

w0x0f

[KSYR-pjr]

Visual reference to terrain means being able to see the ground.  This is usually used in response to a controller asking if the pilot has the airport in sight.  A clue that a lower altitude would help matters.  The pilot could be cruising in the base of the clouds.

Not doubting you but why the "guessing game" between pilot and controller in this case?  Why wouldn't the pilot simply reply, "Negative, requesting lower. We are right at the bases?"  Seems like a more direct reply and a request to get as low as possible for the best chance at spotting the airport.

Tomato, what feed was this on?  This almost sounds like it came from a Canadian feed, as this seems to me like terminology used in reference to a contact approach.  Canada has some subtle differences about visual approaches than the US, from what I recall. 

When I flew into Toronto's City Centre one morning from the US, I requested a visual approach while still about 30 miles out (but knowing it was possible based on the airport's ATIS - something that is very common in the States).  The controller admitted that was unable to vector me to the airport with the expectation that he would grant a visual approach.  Instead he "clued me in" by stating he had to either vector me back out the localizer IAF or allow a contact approach, as long as I had a visual on the ground/water below. 

[Tomato]

Yes, you guessed it, it was on a Canadian feed.  I seem to recall it being the controller issuing this statement instead of the pilot, but I could have been mistaken.

[JetScan1]

From ....

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/RAC/1-1.htm#1-5-5

On occasion, particularly during radar-vectored departures in mountainous regions, an aircraft’s performance may be such that a climb to comply with a minimum vectoring altitude is not possible without manœuvring the aircraft away from the desired track. Conversely, on descent, issuance of a descent clearance may be delayed because a particular minimum vectoring altitude precludes a controller from issuing a lower altitude until such time as the aircraft enters the sector for which the lower minimum vectoring altitude applies. When the aircraft is operated in VMC, an operational advantage may be gained for all concerned by having the pilot request and ATC authorize a visual climb or a visual descent, as applicable, with respect to obstacles and terrain while on radar vectors. ATC authorization of a visual climb or descent under these circumstances constitutes acceptance by the pilot of the responsibility for terrain and obstacle avoidance.

Example:

ARE YOU ABLE TO MAKE A CLIMB/DESCENT TO (altitude) WHILE MAINTAINING TERRAIN CLEARANCE VISUALLY

– followed by –

CLIMB/DESCEND VISUALLY FROM (altitude) TO (altitude).

What feed were you listening to ? As an example it's common to hear this request from IFR arrivals into Vancouver (YVR) from the east in VMC conditions. This allows you to expedite your descent, otherwise ATC has to keep you high due to the minimum vectoring altitudes in that area over the mountains. DJ

[w0x0f]

Not doubting you but why the "guessing game" between pilot and controller in this case?  Why wouldn't the pilot simply reply, "Negative, requesting lower. We are right at the bases?"  Seems like a more direct reply and a request to get as low as possible for the best chance at spotting the airport.

The times that I have heard this used by a pilot is when I have them at my MVA.  Many times the ceiling is different at airports without weather reporting or in many cases, we don't get the AWOS or ASOS information.  There is no guessing game.  Lower is not an option and I can't suggest a contact approach.  He's suggesting a lower altitude which is not available or he may come right out and say it like you would.  I prefer pilots like you who are right to the point.  Either way, we both know a visual ain't happening.  The pilot would need to ask for a contact approach or a cruise clearance.

7-4-6. CONTACT APPROACH

Clear an aircraft for a contact approach only if the following conditions are met:

a. The pilot has requested it.

NOTE-
When executing a contact approach, the pilot is responsible for maintaining the required flight visibility, cloud clearance, and terrain/obstruction clearance. Unless otherwise restricted, the pilot may find it necessary to descend, climb, and/or fly a circuitous route to the airport to maintain cloud clearance and/or terrain/ obstruction clearance. It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot.

b. The reported ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile.

c. A standard or special instrument approach procedure has been published and is functioning for the airport of intended landing.

d. Approved separation is applied between aircraft so cleared and other IFR or SVFR aircraft. When applying vertical separation, do not assign a fixed altitude but clear the aircraft at or below an altitude which is at least 1,000 feet below any IFR traffic but not below the minimum safe altitude prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.119.

NOTE-
14 CFR Section 91.119 specifies the minimum safe altitude to be flown:
(a) Anywhere.
(b) Over congested areas.
(c) Other than congested areas. To provide for an emergency landing in the event of power failure and without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(d) Helicopters. May be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paras (b) and (c) above if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

e. An alternative clearance is issued when weather conditions are such that a contact approach may be impracticable.

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED CONTACT APPROACH,

And if required,
AT OR BELOW (altitude) (routing).

IF NOT POSSIBLE, (alternative procedures), AND ADVISE.

 

4-5-7. ALTITUDE INFORMATION

Issue altitude instructions as follows:

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Clearance Items, Para 4-2-1.

a. Altitude to maintain or cruise. When issuing cruise in conjunction with an airport clearance limit and an unpublished route will be used, issue an appropriate crossing altitude to ensure terrain clearance until the aircraft reaches a fix, point, or route where the altitude information is available to the pilot. When issuing a cruise clearance to an airport which does not have a published instrument approach, a cruise clearance without a crossing restriction may be issued.

PHRASEOLOGY-
MAINTAIN/CRUISE (altitude). MAINTAIN (altitude)
UNTIL (time, fix, waypoint),

or

(number of miles or minutes) MILES/MINUTES PAST (fix, waypoint).

CROSS (fix, point, waypoint),

or

INTERCEPT (route) AT OR ABOVE (altitude), CRUISE (altitude).

NOTE-
1. The crossing altitude must assure IFR obstruction clearance to the point where the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.

2. When an aircraft is issued a cruise clearance to an airport which does not have a published instrument approach procedure, it is not possible to satisfy the requirement for a crossing altitude that will ensure terrain clearance until the aircraft reaches a fix, point, or route where altitude information is available to the pilot. Under those conditions, a cruise clearance without a crossing restriction authorizes a pilot to determine the minimum IFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.177 and descend to it at pilot discretion if it is lower than the altitude specified in the cruise clearance.

 
w0x0f

[Tomato]

As an example it's common to hear this request from IFR arrivals into Vancouver (YVR) from the east in VMC conditions ... due to the minimum vectoring altitudes in that area over the mountains. DJ

JetScan... you hit it on the ball, atleast the location part.  I am asking this question from talk I've heard from the CYVR traffic.  May I conclude, then, that the visual approach I've always heard is the same thing as the visual reference to terrain?  If so, it quickly answers my question, otherwise... 

[KSYR-pjr]

It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot.

Looks like the Toronto Approach controller was very kind that day, although perhaps Canadian ATC procedures do not have this particular restriction.

I will admit that I, like many GA pilots, do not take full advantage of the contact approach, although  in looking back I can think of a couple of recent experiences where it would have helped, assuming the controller accepted it.

[JetScan1]

May I conclude, then, that the visual approach I've always heard is the same thing as the visual reference to terrain?

Well they both mean that the pilot accepts responsibility for terrain and obstacle avoidance. The "visual approach" is used for approaches/landing, while the "visual climb/descent" is only used for altitude changes, I've never heard it or seen reference to it being used for an actual approach clearance. In your initial post you seem to be implying that it might be used for approaches, what exactly did you hear ?

It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot.

The intent is the same in Canada, but I have heard on occasion a controller hinting at it if a pilot hasn't clued in. Although that can present problems. Reminds me of a flight I did years ago back when I was a second officer. It was a murky evening and we were on vectors on the base leg when the captain, who was flying, spots the runway through the haze. The FO on the radio advises approach, "runway in sight requesting a visual approach". The controller replies, "unable the visual because the latest visibility is still reported as less than 3 miles, would you like a contact approach ?" The radios were a little scratchy and the controller was talking fast, so the FO didn't quite hear him clearly and replies, "what's the frequency ?". The controller repeats himself, but again the FO is not hearing him clearly and replies, "we'll contact approach, but what's the frequency ?". I'm just about to say something when the Captain chimes in, "no no he means fly a contact approach, not contact approach control". The light bulb comes on and the FO then request a contact approach. We got a good chuckle over that later at the bar. DJ 

[Tomato]

Thanks for the info... I guess I should have said that it's similar in concept, rather "the same thing as."

It's funny how you mis-hear a word or two and it completely changes everything!  Glad to hear you had some innocent fun at um, somebody else's expense. 

[sierra yankee]

It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot.

Looks like the Toronto Approach controller was very kind that day, although perhaps Canadian ATC procedures do not have this particular restriction.

They do.  We are not allowed to initiate a contact approach;  it must be requested by the pilot.  We can, however, remind you that it's available, in cases when the visual approach might not be.  In order to clear a visual approach we must have a ceiling 500 feet or more above the minimum IFR altitude, and a reported visibility of 3 miles or greater.  Sometimes we'll get a situation where the last METAR was recorded as a thunderstorm was passing over the field -- 30 minutes later it's clear as a bell, but we're in a radar room and all we see is the reported 1 mile vis and 800 foot ceiling so that's all we can go on.  As well, some airports in my specialty don't have their own reporting station, so we have to use one that's nearby, even though the weather might actually be completely different 15 or 20 miles away at that station.

In such cases, the standard phraseology when pilots want the visual approach is "I don't have limits for a visual, but a contact approach is available upon your request."  This is perfectly legal as we're not telling you to do it, just reminding you that it's an option.  It's perfectly ok to turn it down (which many pilots do as lots of companies' SOPs don't permit contact approaches) and in that case we just use a standard instrument approach.  It doesn't really matter either way to ATC, but for a pilot, doing the contact may save a lot of time as he can basically go straight in to the airport, rather than possibly doing a full approach with procedure turn, etc..

Hope this clears it up.

[Tomato]

What exactly is a contact approach, and how does it differ from a visual approach?

And just to affirm, I heard it again a couple nights ago as "Visual descent, reference terrain" so thanks to you all for explaining that part! 

[KSYR-pjr]

What exactly is a contact approach, and how does it differ from a visual approach?

In the US, a visual approach cannot be granted by ATC unless the reported ceiling is at least 1,000 feet and visibility is 3 miles or greater.    ATC often will suggest a visual approach to IFR pilots as an alternative to the IFR aircraft flying the instrument approach, which speeds up arrivals into an airport.

A contact approach can be granted by ATC when visibility is one mile or greater and the pilot can remain clear of clouds (in other words, fly right next to a cloud but not in it).  Additionally, a contact approach is not offered by ATC in the US; it must be requested by the pilot.