airtraffic

Author Topic: Visual/contact not approved  (Read 9163 times)

Offline Jonathan_tcu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Visual/contact not approved
« on: November 23, 2005, 02:22:54 PM »
Here's a good one.  One hour ago, one aircraft departed the airport, another was inbound, both south of the airport, one was Jazz heading south to Toronto and another was heading inbound to the airport.  The controller could not approve the visual due to non-radar AND opposite traffic issues.  The pilot requested the contacted, that was denied too, again due to traffic.  The controller suggested, to fly north of the VOR prior to the descent and approach.  Plus, a lot of pilots here in the north ask for the visual without even having the airport visual.  :roll:   So, after all this, he just requested the ILS rwy 03 approach and he was handed-off.  However, the controller asked both pilots to reference each other's cockpit visuals, THAT was obtained and then the visual was approved.

Lesson learned: if you're not on radar and there are 2 + aircraft, you have to see each other for ATC to approve a visual or possibly the contact.  

I just find it funny how pilots, who may be new to the area, don't remember the rules that are always enforced by ATC.



Offline Scrapper

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Visual/contact not approved
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2005, 04:27:13 PM »
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but even if you DO have the contacts on radar, they sometimes have to be visual before you can give them the clearance.  ie. if you have for example an 737 on final, and another 737 is closing the airport and calls visual at let's say 10 miles, you can't clear the farther aircraft for a visual approach to the airport unless he has the aircraft visual as well... if i'm not mistaken you would tell the second 737, traffic ahead of you 5 miles, one 747 on final... then when he calls back that he has that traffic in sight you would clear him for the visual approach to the same runway... this way the second can maintain visual separation while he starts his own final as number 2. (If I'm wrong here, someone let me know... at sea, things are obviously QUITE different...)

Offline Jonathan_tcu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Visual/contact not approved
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2005, 04:40:42 PM »
You are right.  One of my fav controllers spoke to a pilot back in April I think, who said, the purpose behind the visual approach is to follow the aircraft's approach on radar (hence VFR ATC sectors) and point out any other VFR's that ATC can see and conduct multiple visual approaches.  And yes, confirming a visual on neighbouring aircraft prior to cancelling outbound restrictions or handing off an aircraft for final approach, IS the requirement.

Offline 84XRAY

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Visual vs Instrument approach procedures
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2005, 12:49:48 AM »
I think you guys are missing what is really happening.  The term Visual Approach refer to the Type of approach clearance an IFR aircraft receives for approaching an airport to land in VFR weather conditions. Now there are restrictions on when a controller can issues such a clearance such as ceiling and visability but, there could be other traffic close by and the clearance could be issued without the aircraft seeing each other. In fact the clearance is usually issued when the aircraft is too far from airport to see other aircraft in the pattern. The “VISUAL” is about really about weather conditions rather than traffic. VFR aircraft don't get cleared for the visual appoaches, they just get told to contact the tower for landing clearance. The phrase Contact Approach is another type of IFR approach clearance but, It can only be requested by the pilot of the aircraft, and never assigned by ATC.  It has less strict weather condition minimum standards but requires the pilot to maintain visual contact with the preceding aircraft and/or the airport.

Offline JetScan1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
Visual/contact not approved
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2005, 01:58:54 AM »
84XRAY,

You've got it backwards. The "visual" approach requires the higher weather minimums (visibility 3sm) and at controlled airports the pilot has to see the aircraft they are following and separation is the responsibility of the pilot. The "contact" approach only requires a visibility of 1sm and traffic separation remains the responsibility of the controller.

Going back to the original post, conducting a "visual approach" is generally only used in a radar environment. In a non radar environment the pilot would just advise ATC that they are "cancelling the IFR".

DJ

Offline Jonathan_tcu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Visual/contact not approved
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2005, 06:59:52 AM »
In our non-radar environment, pilots will request a visual, contact the Flight Service for traffic, then hand off to the FSS in under 20 miles to the final approach.  From what Toronto contollers have asked is that pilots report the field visual before they request the visual approach.  If they drop off radar, their best approach would be the contact, or a fixed approach based on the approach plate.  Or, when the aircraft is talking to the arriving airport, that airport personel will hotline Toronto to request an approval for either the visual or contact.  Get this, new rules state one aircraft can be on a visual or contact approach while the following aircraft, say 5 + miles behind the number 1, cannot copycat that first guy's approach.  The following aircraft must cancel IFR and get traffic updates with local tower/fss, or keep the IFR active and the radar center will issue a hold until the aircraft ahead has cancelled IFR or reports vacant from the runway.

Offline 84XRAY

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Visual/contact not approved
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2005, 02:51:03 PM »
DJ,

I was referring to a contact approach when I was talking about less strict weather standards.  You are correct about the 3 miles for a visual. I also realized that I might have interjected myself into Canadian conversation of which I know nothing about Canadian regulations. FAA regulations are quite different as you can see below from some excerpt from the FAR AIM:



5-4-21. Visual Approach

a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications


d. Separation Responsibilities. 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. When visually following a preceding aircraft, acceptance of the visual approach clearance constitutes acceptance of pilot responsibility for maintaining a safe approach interval and adequate wake turbulence separation.


http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0504.html#5-4-6

Offline Jonathan_tcu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Visual/contact not approved
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2005, 09:06:29 AM »
I can automatically assume the U.S. rules are different from Canada.  From what I know of, I often hear on ATC freq's, aircraft no longer on radar who DON"T request a visual approach, will not get it approved.  From what I hear up here as well as some non-radar areas outside of the Toronto Pearson control zone, is you must request it prior to termination of radar coverage, otherwise the pilot will be given contact approach only no matter how good the VFR weather is.  Or, the pilot can request it with London FSS via RCO or the local FSS who will then hotline CZYZ (Toronto center) and get it approve thereafterwards.  The other option is some pilots will fly a straight-in via a published approach.  Here in the Timmins control zone, the straight-in rwy 03 via RIDIK (10 DME FAF) is most requested due to frequent winds being 340 to 050 degrees.