Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Visual Approach - is there a standard pattern?

On the occassions I have done these, it was obvious which way to go, and usually it was a left base and final kind of join. Sometimes it was a right base and again that was obvious from my position at the time.

But is there a standard for this. Let’s say you are overhead the airport and flying up over the runway, on the reciprocal of the runway heading, so you can choose to do a left or right circuit.

One option is to look at the VFR Approach Chart, but a Visual Approach is an IFR procedure so the VAC should not be a requirement, and anyway e.g. Jepp sell their IFR terminal charts separately from the Europe VFR coverage, plus outside Europe there aren’t separate VACs as such, AFAICS.

Another option is to ask ATC – if they haven’t told you.

Another one (in my above example) is to fly the published circling approach which is a right break and a left hand circuit to land.

Last Edited by Peter at 16 Aug 15:06
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The standard VFR pattern is a left hand pattern unless otherwise stated on the VAC. The trick is to determine what runway to use, depending on the wind and other factors (sun, preferential runway), and based on that information, how to join the pattern. If there is a lot of traffic in the pattern (on the radio), the runway in use should be obvious enough although you may not like it. I for example do not like landing into the sunset if I can help it, and prefer a slight tail wind over having the sun in my eyes and the stroboscopic effect of the propeller.

If there is an AWOS on the field, you do not need to visually determine the wind by observing the windsock, so you can join the downwind leg or even direct final (not in France). Otherwise, upwind, crosswind, downwind, base and final…

Sorry, but I could not resist broadening the topic a little.

LFPT, LFPN

I just realized that your question was maybe related to a visual approach in IFR. In that case I think the answer is the most practical way to maneuver to final. There are some airports for which a visual approach chart is published.

LFPT, LFPN

Yes – a Visual Approach is an IFR procedure.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Here in the US, we have to fly the correct direction for the pattern at a non towered airport. At a towered airport, it is whatever the tower approves.

KUZA, United States

This is airport and airspace dependent. In general there is no difference between a visual approach and a “VFR approach”. I don’t think I have ever even heard the term “VFR approach chart”. There are VFR routes for light aircraft inside the control zone of an airport, and there are official (or used to be, not many nowadays for some reason) VFR traffic pattern charts. Most often though the visual approach chart is the “VFR approach” chart as well as the VFR routes chart, there are no other “visual” charts, but this is not always the case.

Is a “visual Approach” a procedure? isn’t it just a clearance to go visual inside the control zone? Some controlled airports have both visual approach chart and VFR routes chart (light aircraft). In these cases it is obvious that the visual approach chart is meant for entering via IFR and/or when flying very fast. In other cases it is equally obvious that the visual approach chart is meant for all visual flying. In a controlled airport this will never be a problem. Either you are cleared to final/downwind/base via some checkpoint (VFR) or cleared “visual” in some other way, it doesn’t really matter, you need a clearance whatever you do. I don’t see why I couldn’t be cleared a “visual approach” like the big jets here at ENVA following the visual approach chart instead of the VFR routes chart when flying VFR – except I will be on final for a loooong time and the tower won’t like that. That is how I thought it was. The visual approach chart is meant for aircraft too large or fast to follow the VFR routes charts (when these exist), or when entering via IFR.

For G* airspace (TIZ, TIA, lots of them here in Norway) there are no clearances and no checkpoints and therefore no differences between a visual IFR approach and a visual VFR approach. The only requirement is two way radio within the opening hours. IFR approaches are allowed only within opening hours. The tower gives you the information you need regarding wind, other traffic, the current runway in use, left hand/right hand etc, and you are supposed to “go with the flow”, IFR or VFR.

At non-serviced airports the usual procedure is to fly 45 degrees across the runway at 500-1000 feet AGL. This signs to people on the ground that you intend to land and also gives you a chance to look at the wind sock. Often there are people on the ground (or in the air) with radio, and if you get radio contact, you just fly like it was in a G* airport, you go with the flow and report your whereabouts and intentions.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

All a visual approach means is (and it can only be requested by the IFR pilot not given by ATC, although they may offer it) is that it absolves ATC of any requirement with regards to terrain etc…If a visual approach is a published IAP then they could ask you to fly that procedure.

So if you’re expecting an ILS you can say “I’ll take the visual approach” and it means that you can still fly the ILS to land, but visually, or by some other means. I guess if you are approaching the airport from an upwind direction, rather than being vectored all the way round to an ILS final, you could just nip in and join downwind for the visual pattern.

I’ve been offered it a few times in the USA or asked for it as it would clearly be quicker than all the vectors on a nice sunny day. One thing to note though is that you are still IFR, and haven’t cancelled which might be an important consideration for airspace (if you suddenly cancel IFR in certain classes of airspace where VFR is not permitted you’d suddenly become illegal).

On a side note, you could also request a VFR climb (or rather Visual climb), for example you might have a DP which takes you miles away for obstacle clearance. However if you were in gin clear weather you could request a VFR climb to somewhere on your route, avoiding all the extra mileage. I was on an Airbus out of Jackson Hole and was listening to ATC on the entertainment system and the pilot did exactly that.

Last Edited by AlanB at 17 Aug 10:28
EGHS

Procedurewise, there is no real difference between a VFR approach and a visual approach. The only thing that changes is the flight rules. You can refer to the visual approach chart (VAC) in both cases.

I’ve been offered it a few times in the USA or asked for it as it would clearly be quicker than all the vectors on a nice sunny day. One thing to note though is that you are still IFR, and haven’t cancelled which might be an important consideration for airspace (if you suddenly cancel IFR in certain classes of airspace where VFR is not permitted you’d suddenly become illegal).

The only class of airspace where VFR is not permitted is class A.

On a side note, you could also request a VFR climb (or rather Visual climb), for example you might have a DP which takes you miles away for obstacle clearance. However if you were in gin clear weather you could request a VFR climb to somewhere on your route, avoiding all the extra mileage. I was on an Airbus out of Jackson Hole and was listening to ATC on the entertainment system and the pilot did exactly that.

These are called visual departures here.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

But an IFR departure can switch to a visual departure after take off without any cancellation of IFR, which was my point. Eg,. You might need to depart IFR, climb on top of a thin layer and then request a visual climb own navigation to XYZ rather than complete the full ODP, before climbing into upper airspace / CAS etc…

At least it can in the USA ;)

EGHS

I have accepted a visual departure out of Köln which was offered by ATC and avoided me having to fly the full SID.

EGTK Oxford
24 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top