On my 172 a visual approach can mean a15 minutes gain.
Yet for a visual approach to be requested or cleared, you must be in sight of the airfield. At least in France
4.3.3. Clairance d’approche à vue
4.3.3.1 Un aéronef en vol IFR peut ne pas exécuter une procédure d’approche aux instruments publiée ou approuvée ou ne pas en poursuivre l’exécution pour effectuer une approche à vue par repérage visuel du sol si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
a) le pilote voit l’aérodrome (The pilot can see the aerodrome);
b) le pilote peut garder le contact visuel avec le sol ;
c) le pilote juge que la visibilité et le plafond permettent une approche à vue et estime l’atterrissage possible ;
d) de nuit, le plafond n’est pas inférieur à l’altitude minimale de secteur ou, le cas échéant, de la trajectoire de ralliement empruntée;
e) en espace aérien contrôlé, le pilote a reçu une clairance d’approche à vue;
f) le pilote respecte les éventuelles consignes particulières propres à l’approche à vue sur l’aérodrome considéré et les restrictions d’évolution vers la piste émises par l’organisme de contrôle de la circulation aérienne.
Un pilote peut exécuter une approche à vue même en l’absence de procédure aux instruments.
Quand il exécute une approche à vue, l’aéronef continue à bénéficier des services de la circulationaérienne correspondant à la classe de l’espace dans lequel il évolue.
I don’t know whether it’s permitted or not elsewhere.
When I can’t see the aerodrome, if the weather permits and if the instrument procedure is significantly longer than a visual approach, I change to VFR.
The big difference of changing to VFR is that the instrument missed approach procedure becomes unavailable.
EDIT from ICAO Doc 4444
According to ICAO standard, visual contact with the aerodrome is not required, yet you must see the ground.
6.5.3 Visual approach
6.5.3.1 Subject to the conditions in 6.5.3.3, clearance for an IFR flight to execute a visual approach may be requested by
a flight crew or initiated by the controller. In the latter case, the
concurrence of the flight crew shall be required.
6.5.3.2 Controllers shall exercise caution in initiating a
visual approach when there is reason to believe that the flight
crew concerned is not familiar with the aerodrome and its
surrounding terrain. Controllers should also take into consideration
the prevailing traffic and meteorological conditions
when initiating visual approaches.
6.5.3.3 An IFR flight may be cleared to execute a visual
approach provided the pilot can maintain visual reference to
the terrain and:
a) the reported ceiling is at or above the approved initial
approach level for the aircraft so cleared; or
b) the pilot reports at the initial approach level or at any
time during the instrument approach procedure that the
meteorological conditions are such that with
reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing
can be completed.
6.5.3.4 Separation shall be provided between an aircraft
cleared to execute a visual approach and other arriving and
departing aircraft.
6.5.3.5 For successive visual approaches, radar or nonradar
separation shall be maintained until the pilot of a
succeeding aircraft reports having the preceding aircraft in
sight. The aircraft shall then be instructed to follow and
maintain own separation from the preceding aircraft. When
both aircraft are of a heavy wake turbulence category, or the
preceding aircraft is of a heavier wake turbulence category
than the following, and the distance between the aircraft is less
than the appropriate wake turbulence minimum, the controller
shall issue a caution of possible wake turbulence. The pilot-incommand
of the aircraft concerned shall be responsible for
ensuring that the spacing from a preceding aircraft of a heavier
wake turbulence category is acceptable. If it is determined that
additional spacing is required, the flight crew shall inform the
ATC unit accordingly, stating their requirements
what_next wrote:
That’s a requirement for uncontrolled airfields with instrument procedures around here. They can only have one IFR movement at one time inside their airspace (which is called RMZ now). A VFR departure will not be held on the ground while I perform my training approach, nor will VFR traffic in the pattern be affected by that. Just other aircraft departing or arriving on instrument flight plans.
That is a procedure providing procedural IFR-IFR separation (basically Class E standard) in class G airspace… badly.
NCYankee wrote:
In the US, a visual approach requires three mile visibility and a 1000 foot ceiling at the airport. The airport or the preceding aircraft must be in sight.
But you have a “contact approach” (1 SM, clear of clouds), don’t you?
I think one of the reasons for the low RVR 800 m limit on the visual approach is the approach ban we have in Europe, which isn’t applicable to Part 91 in the US. It’s not unknown for shallow fog to cause a low RVR but with the airport clearly visible in a way that permits a visual approach.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The only visibility requirement is that the RVR is at least 800 m.
Interesting. In the US, a visual approach requires three mile visibility and a 1000 foot ceiling at the airport. The airport or the preceding aircraft must be in sight.
Alexis wrote:
well, of course I understand, but “practice” is the keyword. And when you need practice (IAP, avionics, procedures) and you are flying on an IFR FPL (filed by aR ;-) then you cannot think about some guy in a Cessna waiting for 10 minutes. You know how much training it takes to fly IAPs in bad weather safely, and as a beginner you HAVE to practice the stuff, no matter how nice the weather is.
I think there is a difference – if you are training you cant really do much about when and where, but if you are practising I suspect their are enough days when the weather is poor. Certainly in the UK many airports will either tell you that they are out of training slots (so that is that) or will not accept you unless you have booked a training slot when the weather is CAVOK.
There are also plenty of places around without radar (and I guess there will be more) and with a procedure.
Also without any IFR procedural arrivals many towers will just have othe one controller on duty – dont you still need two for a procedural arrival? If so I get the impression pulling someone off their break for an unplanned procedural arrival in conditions that dont warrant does not go down well.
Flying yesterday it was interesting at three of the larger regional airports I passed handling commercial traffic the pilots were asking for visual approaches – I rather think they like the opportunity when conditions are this good!
Oh and I expect if you have in mind to make life easier for you, because you are a bit out of sorts with orientating yourself at a more complicated airport and fancy have the controller do the work for you with vectors, then I suspect it would not do any harm to brush up those skills a little as well ;-)
Cobalt wrote:
This looks more like impractical ATC procedures (or incompetent ATC) to me – whether an aircraft is on the ILS or on a visual long final should make no difference to whether they can squeeze in a departure…
That’s a requirement for uncontrolled airfields with instrument procedures around here. They can only have one IFR movement at one time inside their airspace (which is called RMZ now). A VFR departure will not be held on the ground while I perform my training approach, nor will VFR traffic in the pattern be affected by that. Just other aircraft departing or arriving on instrument flight plans.
This looks more like impractical ATC procedures (or incompetent ATC) to me – whether an aircraft is on the ILS or on a visual long final should make no difference to whether they can squeeze in a departure…
achimha wrote:
As an instrument instructor, you very well know to not practise at the wrong airfields and/or at the wrong time of day.
Well, we practise a lot at Schwäbisch Hall for example, and considering how busy they are this time of the year it will always be the “wrong time of day” to fly there for instrument training. Same at my home base where you will always hold an airliner on the ground for some time or slow him on approach when you do IAPs with a light plane. I wouldn’t be able to do my job if I would only fly in winter, at night or in real bad weather… and anyway I have been held on the ground myself a lot by others who learnt to fly. I don’t call them censoreds for that.
achimha wrote:
At a very busy airfield (yesterday it was Portoroz LJPZ), my view is that I expect everybody (allowed/capable) to perform visual procedures or cancel IFR and not make the rest of the crowd suffer for lack of proper planning as to where and when perform training. LJPZ is a good example because the procedures block the aerodrome for a long time.
Well I did a visual in there two weeks ago. RADAR handed me over at FL120 over the field. But it would have been a circling approach anyway on the IAP.
I think the OP is referring to a visual approach as an IFR procedure rather than a VFR circuit to land. I’ve often done both, the VFR circuit to land means cancelling IFR if you are on a FP. The IFR visual approach can be very useful, when I’ve requested them I’ll often get the response “cleared for a visual approach RWY XX, report 4 dme”. This leaves you free to plan your own descent profile, you often don’t then need to descend and level off at platform altitude some distance from the field (and thump along in thermalling air). Obviously you can still use ILS and/or PAPIs to maintain the profile.
This works well at small airports in France where regional ACC hand you over to a radar equipped tower while still fairly high. Clearly all this works well in summer with frequent CAVOK conditions. If the cloudbase is below platform altitude then converting to a visual IFR approach is pointless if you are already flying the IAP.
