Visual Approach Vs. Canceling IFR ??

[Dronepiper]

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between getting cleared a visual approach or canceling IFR?

There was a 172 doing IFR training at our airport last year and he was on an IFR clearance doing approaches. ATC was upset with them because they were not canceling IFR, even though it was VFR, and it was causing disruptions.

Why couldn't the 172 not have just gotten a visual approach clearance? and that after the missed, get a new IFR clearance?

Why did ATC need it to cancel IFR to sequence the IFR traffic behind the 172?

[A346Dude]

When you are cleared for a visual approach, you are still IFR and must be provided with IFR separation (with some exceptions).

[robshelle]

Doing visual approaches doesn't help a student training IFR. However, a C172 can easily do simulated IFR, get all the required practice for a rating and still get the same level of service from ATC, but because they are VFR, ATC does not have to apply full IFR separation. As an example, here at CYEG, we have 2 runways that don't touch but form an L shape. If an IFR Trainer is doing a low approach and missed approach, we have to apply 3 miles radar separation to all other IFR traffic, including departures. If the trainer is using RWY 30, even though the missed approach is south of the threshold of RWY 02, we would have to wait until the Missed Approach from RWY 30 is at least 2 miles off the end of the threshold, west of RWY 02, before clearing a 02 takeoff (the trainer would be south of the departure at all times). If the RWY 30 trainer is a slow aircraft (C172 or a military helicopter for example), then 02 departures could be waiting for up to 5 minutes to depart, which would be unnecessary if the trainer was VFR. This does seem ridiculous, but those are the rules that we have to enforce.

Robbie Benusic

[Dronepiper]

Doing visual approaches doesn't help a student training IFR. However, a C172 can easily do simulated IFR, get all the required practice for a rating and still get the same level of service from ATC, but because they are VFR, ATC does not have to apply full IFR separation. As an example, here at CYEG, we have 2 runways that don't touch but form an L shape. If an IFR Trainer is doing a low approach and missed approach, we have to apply 3 miles radar separation to all other IFR traffic, including departures. If the trainer is using RWY 30, even though the missed approach is south of the threshold of RWY 02, we would have to wait until the Missed Approach from RWY 30 is at least 2 miles off the end of the threshold, west of RWY 02, before clearing a 02 takeoff (the trainer would be south of the departure at all times). If the RWY 30 trainer is a slow aircraft (C172 or a military helicopter for example), then 02 departures could be waiting for up to 5 minutes to depart, which would be unnecessary if the trainer was VFR. This does seem ridiculous, but those are the rules that we have to enforce.

Robbie Benusic

So if you give that 172 a visual approach clearance at 5 miles final, do you still need to wait until it lands before you release an IFR aircraft for departure off of the same runway?

[ayseven]

If you cancel IFR, you are on your own, and cannot do a missed with any separation from traffic or obstacles. I cannot see how any visual approaches, especially with IFR cancelled can help a student either. You are not there for a controller, he is there for you, and you pay for him. In the real world, you should to be somewhat cognisant of their situation, just to keep things rolling, but for training, I think you have enough on your plate. I know I do.

[Maynard]

It’s not for atc, it’s for the back up of ifr aircraft who want either an approach clearance or a decent so they can cancel ifr and get on with their day. Nothing worse than getting put into a hold because the people in screaming VMC won’t cancel ifr. Timmins comes to mind. Also for training, there’s these things called “simulated”....you can still do your pretend missed approach.

[ayseven]

Good points.

[2R]

Sense, common , none .
Why not do your IFR training at night ?
Night time is hard to get for the Atpl.
Why tie up an airport when you could get your training and night time in the quiet times ?
I did a lot of night time training , complained about it at the time as night time was usually cuddling time , but when I saw how many people struggle to get night time . I realized it was a gift especially the afternoon cuddling time.

" Fly heading 360 , say hello to Santa " was the response to a training request into Orlando during the lunch rush .


If you go after midnight you can shoot approaches until it gets busy or the fog starts .As Lionel Ritchie would sing All Night Long

[dialdriver]

Years ago I had a student from the middle east doing a single IFR on a 172 because that was all he needed back home to get a job. The weather was below VMC for a week or so and ATC put out it's usual notam banning IFR training. In the spirit of cooperation we sat around for several days - me not earning any money and the student wondering why he came to Canada for training. After a few days, I gave up and filed two flight plans, one to destination and one return instead of the single typical training plan.

On the way to the destination I was asked if I was on a training or commercial flight, I responded, "it's an IFR flight".

For a while there were a number of ATC antics and confrontations. On one flight I was refused an approach with the controller referencing a notam banning training, to which I replied it was expired. I landed and called ATC on the phone and obtained an apology and on takeoff had an offer to do whatever approach I needed. Eventually the training slot system was devised which largely solved the problem.

At the end of the day there is a need for some cooperation. Some training can be done simulated and some needs to be done actual. Suspending your IFR clearance for your training flight, taking a hold or vector or flying at night are some options that come to mind to accommodate other aircraft. I built up all the required time for my ATPL by doing training in the late evening and was able to expose my student to normally high density airports while keeping myself, my student, ATC and other aircraft happy.

[A346Dude]

So if you give that 172 a visual approach clearance at 5 miles final, do you still need to wait until it lands before you release an IFR aircraft for departure off of the same runway?

If the 172 is landing full stop and weather is decent, Tower can take control of it at the control zone boundary. This essentially turns the 172 into a VFR and allows IFR departures ahead of it. The problem is this procedure cannot be applied if the 172 is doing an approach and intends to go missed.

[Dronepiper]

Ok Maybe I didn’t ask this correctly.

What separation needs to be applied in the cases at controlled airports, and at uncontrolled airports that lie within controlled airspace.


2 IFR aircraft on visual approaches, 1 IFR waiting for departure

1 IFR aircraft on a visual (Full Stop) 1 IFR aircraft on an Instrument approach

1 IFR Aircraft on an instrument approach, 1 VFR Aircraft on approach

2 IFR Aircraft on instrument approaches, 1 IFR aircraft waiting for departure

Does this change in YYZ vs YQT? I feel like there is way less spacing in YYZ.

[digits_]

So if you give that 172 a visual approach clearance at 5 miles final, do you still need to wait until it lands before you release an IFR aircraft for departure off of the same runway?

If the 172 is landing full stop and weather is decent, Tower can take control of it at the control zone boundary. This essentially turns the 172 into a VFR and allows IFR departures ahead of it. The problem is this procedure cannot be applied if the 172 is doing an approach and intends to go missed.

Why is the intend of the 172 to go missed relevant? Every approach clearance allows you to go missed, so why is there a difference between an unplanned missed approach and a planned one?

[Driving Comet]

Ok Maybe I didn’t ask this correctly.

What separation needs to be applied in the cases at controlled airports, and at uncontrolled airports that lie within controlled airspace.


2 IFR aircraft on visual approaches, 1 IFR waiting for departure

1 IFR aircraft on a visual (Full Stop) 1 IFR aircraft on an Instrument approach

1 IFR Aircraft on an instrument approach, 1 VFR Aircraft on approach

2 IFR Aircraft on instrument approaches, 1 IFR aircraft waiting for departure

Does this change in YYZ vs YQT? I feel like there is way less spacing in YYZ.

There are a lot of variables that are taken into account when we talk about separation. MATS reference plus full explanations would just be too much, and more than the basics isn't really a pilots concern.

First off, arriving IFR aircraft (no matter the approach they're on) that meet certain criteria, and during certain weather conditions (good weather), can be transferred from the control of the IFR ATC unit to the tower. This will happen when the arrival is established on final, and is in the control zone, unless there are local procedures. For example, where I work IFR aircraft are automatically towers control whenever they enter the zone, not just on final. Essentially this means the tower will ensure separation between IFR/IFR aircraft, and aircraft can be closer together. Separation increases when tower does not take control of arrivals, which is usually because the weather isn't good enough.

This is for a towered airport in good weather (tower taking control of arrivals)
1) Second aircraft must see the first and follow it, or some sort of positive separation applied to ensure aircraft will remain separated until tower has control. Departure unaffected by arrivals.

2) Aircraft are separated until towers control (usually 3 miles).

3) IFR aircraft unaffected by VFR arrival, this is towers problem to sequence.

4) 3 miles until aircraft are towers control, departure unaffected by arrivals.

Yes is changes controlled airport to controlled airport, but not drastically. I'm pretty sure YYZ has waivers to run arrivals 2.5 mile space on final. It also may come down to the fact that YYZ terminal controllers run pretty close to minimum spacing all the time, so they're comfortable running a very tight operation. The aircraft into and out of YYZ can all maintain a pretty similar speed on final as well. Compare that to say a run of 4 arrivals into YQT that maybe be a DH8D, C172, PC12, B737. More spacing will be needed when you're trying to get such different speeds to the same runway. Arrival spacing is also affected by wake turbulence requirements.

Uncontrolled airports I'm not sure about.

[Driving Comet]

So if you give that 172 a visual approach clearance at 5 miles final, do you still need to wait until it lands before you release an IFR aircraft for departure off of the same runway?

If the 172 is landing full stop and weather is decent, Tower can take control of it at the control zone boundary. This essentially turns the 172 into a VFR and allows IFR departures ahead of it. The problem is this procedure cannot be applied if the 172 is doing an approach and intends to go missed.

Why is the intend of the 172 to go missed relevant? Every approach clearance allows you to go missed, so why is there a difference between an unplanned missed approach and a planned one?

Tower controllers cannot take control of IFR aircraft that are not intending to land. Therefore IFR separation must be maintained the whole time, from both other arrivals and IFR departures. Its all about who has responsibility of control of the aircraft, the IFR unit or the tower.

[digits_]

Good information, thanks!

Does that mean ATC would prefer IFR training aircraft to plan to land and then change their mind over the treshold?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I second the recommendation to do IFR training at night if you are training at a busy terminal area. As an instructor I did all many IFR training flights at night and almost always found them more productive.

In the Southern BC area how IFR flights are handled seems to be very much dependent on who the controller is. There used to be one voice that as soon as I heard it, I knew I was going to have a hard time. A lot of others however went the extra mile to make things work. I was never shy about asking what for what I wanted but always tried to stay calm and professional.

There was one time however where it was the end of a long day for me and the terminal controller was not doing very well. After completely screwing up the line up vectors for the guy behind us on the ILS the solution was to turn us off the approach and give us a hold. I knew we were going to be held a long time because it looked like there was 4 airplanes heading for the ILS.

I told the student I would read back the hold " ABC is cleared to hold SW on the 230 radial of the HUH VOR, maintain 4000 ft, expect further clearance in 180 dollars. There was a pause and to his credit the controller said "point taken and you should only have to do one lap in the hold".

[Redneck_pilot86]

Whitehorse is a great example of why. As a non radar environment in the mountains, they can only have one aircraft on the approach/missed at a time. Anyone else will be given a hold. This can become extremely limiting as minimum safe is 11,300 and non pressurized aircraft like the caravans and navajos can't go above 13,000, so there is only 2 altitudes and 2 fixes to hold on. Cancelling allows the next one to start an approach or depart, where the visual approach does not. These approaches are upwards of 30 miles, and can take 10-15 minutes before landing, longer in a missed approach.

[digits_]

Whitehorse is a great example of why. As a non radar environment in the mountains, they can only have one aircraft on the approach/missed at a time. Anyone else will be given a hold. This can become extremely limiting as minimum safe is 11,300 and non pressurized aircraft like the caravans and navajos can't go above 13,000, so there is only 2 altitudes and 2 fixes to hold on. Cancelling allows the next one to start an approach or depart, where the visual approach does not. These approaches are upwards of 30 miles, and can take 10-15 minutes before landing, longer in a missed approach.

In your example, if one is on a visual approach on an IFR flight plan, would the departing traffic be allowed to depart VFR on an IFR flight plan?

[Dronepiper]

So why don't IFR aircraft just cancel IFR comming into an airport like YQT, instead of requesting a visual?

[fishface]

So why don't IFR aircraft just cancel IFR comming into an airport like YQT, instead of requesting a visual?

Some operators do not allow to fly under VFR.