Requesting a Visual after being Cleared for Approach

[Fresh Prince of King Air]

I have flown with a couple coworkers lately that insist I call the field visual after we have been cleared for some sort of published approach. Usually while on an ILS at an airport with a control tower and we're number 3 in line...

I'm a little hazy on what advantage this creates as we clearly aren't looking to deviate off of some sort of published segment to take a shortcut and flying the published missed will probably be overridden by tower in the rare occasion that we do have to overshoot.

Can someone explain the advantages of the pilot calling the field visual if it is obvious we won't be performing a visual manoeuvre? If I had to guess my coworkers think that it allows atc to space us differently. Is that true?

Thanks in advance.

[Tim]

If you called the field and the guy behind you had you visual it would allow them to clear you both for a visual I guess. But if I was the guy behind you I would still probably want to do the appch anyways if the conditions were marginal. I can't see this really being that helpful. I've never called the field in sight during an approach nor heard anyone else do it...Like you say your already on the appch on final, its not gonna get you on the ground any quicker. How does tower generally respond?

[kevenv]

There is no benefit to me (IFR control) that I can see. Calling the field visual when you're 3rd on final achieves nothing. Neither does it matter to the guy behind you. You don't have to be doing a visual for him to do one behind you with you in sight. Maybe ask your co workers why they do it and let us know?

[Tim]

Maybe its just one of those things that people do thinking that they're helping but that really doesn't (or makes it worse sometimes).

I flew with a capt when I did medevacs who always insisted I ask terminal if they would like us to speed up or slow down. I hated doing it. Finally one day he asked me to do it and I said I just can't. If they want us to change speeds they'll ask. I'm sure he thought he was helping, but in reality we were just clogging up the freq. We were buddies so I didn't mind telling him no quite so much.

Sorta sounds like the same deal as your co-workers. Ask them why, don't be afraid to tell a capt theyre wrong...don't be a jerk about it though

[Parth]

You're 100% right about the speed change thing. Asking is clogging up the frequency.

Regarding calling the field while on another approach, the only advantage I can see is if you want to fly a visual instead (and descend at your discretion as oppose to on the glide path). It really does nothing for ATC.

I suppose it could help us if you do decide to descend below the glide path. Easier to top you with other traffic. But again, it only makes a difference if you plan to conduct the approach visually.

[Fresh Prince of King Air]

Aircraft spacing is predicated by what then? Actual weather conditions, aircraft type and runway situation? Or is it the same all of the time?

Can you space us closer when it's VMC? Can somebody give me a rundown on spacing of aircraft please?

Thanks.

[kevenv]

Aircraft spacing is predicated by what then? Actual weather conditions, aircraft type and runway situation? Or is it the same all of the time?

Can you space us closer when it's VMC? Can somebody give me a rundown on spacing of aircraft please?

Thanks.

Aircraft spacing on final depends on all of the above. Generally speaking 3 miles spacing in a terminal environment, not withstanding wake turbulence requirements or dissimilar performances or airport layout etc etc etc. I believe YYZ uses 2.5nm. If you are doing an instrument approach (VMC or IMC) we need to keep you 3 miles behind the guy in front. If you are doing a visual approach the spacing is up to you AFTER you see the traffic you will be instructed to follow, keeping in mind if you get too close you may not be able to land.

In your scenario of being 3rd on final, calling the field achieves nothing. For traffic following you, it doesn't matter if you are doing an ILS or a Visual approach. Spacing behind you is predicated on what approach, instrument or visual, the following a/c is doing (again not withstanding wake turbulence requirements etc).

[securitas]

Where are you people getting your false information?

Reporting the airport or preceding traffic is one of the most important things a pilot can do in a high density terminal environment particularly where parallel approaches are in operation and has these advantages:

1. IFR separation (3 miles or 1000') is not required with aircraft on the parallel approach. This means you can turn base and final based on the traffic on your runway only and can routinely save up to 25 track miles. In turn, overall delays are reduced because everybody has less time in the system.

2. The requirement to vector aircraft 2 miles outside of the glide path intercept is waived on a visual approach if the pilot consents. This means you'll get the spot ahead of the straight in aircraft instead of the one behind it.

3. For those who still like to fly an airplane, you can operate it how you want on the ideal profile and not have the hassle of inefficiencies of vectors and speed control when traffic is not a factor.

If you're cleared the ils and call the field, you are still on an instrument approach. It does not convert the approach into a visual.

No controller is going to clear you for a visual and allow you to get too close to the traffic in front to lose separation or have to go around, so don't be fearful of that.

If a speed restriction is required it will be given.

Rodge's Mentor

[kevenv]

Where are you people getting your false information?

Reporting the airport or preceding traffic is one of the most important things a pilot can do in a high density terminal environment particularly where parallel approaches are in operation and has these advantages:

1. IFR separation (3 miles or 1000') is not required with aircraft on the parallel approach. This means you can turn base and final based on the traffic on your runway only and can routinely save up to 25 track miles. In turn, overall delays are reduced because everybody has less time in the system.

2. The requirement to vector aircraft 2 miles outside of the glide path intercept is waived on a visual approach if the pilot consents. This means you'll get the spot ahead of the straight in aircraft instead of the one behind it.

3. For those who still like to fly an airplane, you can operate it how you want on the ideal profile and not have the hassle of inefficiencies of vectors and speed control when traffic is not a factor.

If you're cleared the ils and call the field, you are still on an instrument approach. It does not convert the approach into a visual.

No controller is going to clear you for a visual and allow you to get too close to the traffic in front to lose separation or have to go around, so don't be fearful of that.

If a speed restriction is required it will be given.

Rodge's Mentor

Did you read the initial post? The OP stated he was third on final already cleared the approach. He asked what benefit it gave to ATC. He didn't state that it was in a high density terminal with parallel rwy ops in effect.

1. Have a look at Manops 581 and 582. 3 miles or 1000' between arrivals on independent parallel rwys is only required until both a/c are established on their respective localizers. For dependent parallel approaches, again the 3 or 1000 is only required until both a/c are established on their localizers and then 1.5 mile diagonally is required. In these cases calling the field visual when you are number 3 in line does absolutely nothing for us. For visuals in a parallel environment you should read Manops 577.3. You can never ignore the other rwy's traffic.

2. You should check Manops 574.2, we don't need the pilot to consent to "waive" anything. All I have to do is inform him.

3. What does this point have to do with the OP's question? You've gone from high intensity ops with parallel rwys to there being no traffic. This wasn't the OP's question.

Edited to remove an ill thought out question.

[Driving Comet]

This is a very specific example but at CYTZ on the ILS/DME 26 (restricted approach), if you can accept the visual (if weather is high enough) or a contact approach, it may allow departures to go. Long story short, the departing aircraft needs to be rolling and past taxiway Charlie before the arrival on the ILS hits 7.3 DME to protect for the G/S. This means something in the area of 15 mile spacing is needed to get a departure out when there are multiple arrivals on the ILS.

If you can accept the contact and the tower controller can see you it could allow a departure or 2 to go. However this only works when the weather is good enough that the tower will take control of you, which is an ATC thing. If no one is on the ILS, delta taxiway can be used which may clear up some congestion on the ramp. Not that big of a deal, but it's another local advantage for not using the ILS 26 at TZ.

[TA/RA]

Correct me if I am wrong but I can think of a couple advantages of calling the field visual even if you are number 3 to land.

I agree that if you call the field visual it does not necessarily change anything however it does give the terminal / tower controller the option to re-clear you for a visual approach assuming that you have the preceding IFR aircraft in sight. If you are not re-cleared for a visual and the response is a simple "C-GABC Roger" then you are obligated to continue on the previously cleared IFR approach and if you go around then you are also obligated to fly the full missed approach despite CAVOK weather.

The most obvious reason from a pilot perspective is that in the event that you have to go around due to runway incursion, unstable approach, wind shear or any other 100+ reasons is that once you call the field visual and only IF the controller re-cleares you for the Visual Approach then when you go around you no longer have to fly the FULL missed approach you are now considered a "VFR" aircraft once you start the missed and you simply join the appropriate airport traffic pattern.

From a controller's perspective and this is where I may be a little fuzzy but if you are re-cleared for a visual once calling the field in sight then the controller no longer has to protect the airspace in the missed approach procedure. This may enable them to get off a departure or clear an aircraft through the departure path of the runway since you will no longer be expected to fly the full published missed approach.

In addition, unless the frequency is jam packed I personally think that it is good practice to call the field visual because it gives the arrival controller an idea of where the aircraft behind you can expect to get the field in sight and improves the controller's ability to form an arrival plan for the aircraft coming in behind you. Also, just because the METAR ceiling OVC020 at the airport it doesn't mean that 10 miles away it isn't OVC040. An arrival controller at the ACC isn't looking out the window at the current wx conditions so knowing when to expect an aircraft to become visual can be a useful piece of information.

just my 2 cents but again correct me if I am wrong.
TA/RA

[securitas]

Did you read the initial post? The OP stated he was third on final already cleared the approach. He asked what benefit it gave to ATC. He didn't state that it was in a high density terminal with parallel rwy ops in effect.

Yes, and I thought I'd elaborate on the topic.
I stated 3 reasons to show when it does help and illustrate how important it is to the efficiency of the overall operation.
Didn't say it wasn't either.

1. Have a look at Manops 581 and 582. 3 miles or 1000' between arrivals on independent parallel rwys is only required until both a/c are established on their respective localizers.

Not true unless a monitor controller is part of the operation, or at least one aircraft reports the airport in sight (581.1 B 5 b). Otherwise 1000/3 must be maintained until touchdown or control transfer point.

2. You should check Manops 574.2, we don't need the pilot to consent to "waive" anything. All I have to do is inform him.

You're correct, but in the extreme case would anyone try to vector a heavy jet to join final at the marker 1000' above the glidepath in imc without getting the pilot to agree?

3. What does this point have to do with the OP's question? You've gone from high intensity ops with parallel rwys to there being no traffic. This wasn't the OP's question.

Nothing, but it shows the advantage of calling the airport in sight in other circumstances. Sometimes busy airports aren't busy.

For visuals in a parallel environment you should read Manops 577.3. You can never ignore the other rwy's traffic.

I have a few times; particularly 577.3C. Ifr separation not required with parallel traffic if either are on a visual.

In addition, unless the frequency is jam packed I personally think that it is good practice to call the field visual because it gives the arrival controller an idea of where the aircraft behind you can expect to get the field in sight and improves the controller's ability to form an arrival plan for the aircraft coming in behind you.

What he said.

[kevenv]

I give up.

The OP's question/scenario was quite simple. We have managed to turn it into a mess full of "well in this case you could do this". The fact remains, in his original question of being third on final, already cleared for the instrument approach, there is absolutely zero benefit to calling the field visual.

[securitas]

Wrong....at the very least it provided information and eliminates the requirement for a monitor controller.

For all the other reasons I stated, please report the field in sight even if you only see in on your ND!

[Parth]

Correct me if I am wrong but I can think of a couple advantages of calling the field visual even if you are number 3 to land.

I agree that if you call the field visual it does not necessarily change anything however it does give the terminal / tower controller the option to re-clear you for a visual approach assuming that you have the preceding IFR aircraft in sight. If you are not re-cleared for a visual and the response is a simple "C-GABC Roger" then you are obligated to continue on the previously cleared IFR approach and if you go around then you are also obligated to fly the full missed approach despite CAVOK weather.

The most obvious reason from a pilot perspective is that in the event that you have to go around due to runway incursion, unstable approach, wind shear or any other 100+ reasons is that once you call the field visual and only IF the controller re-cleares you for the Visual Approach then when you go around you no longer have to fly the FULL missed approach you are now considered a "VFR" aircraft once you start the missed and you simply join the appropriate airport traffic pattern.

From a controller's perspective and this is where I may be a little fuzzy but if you are re-cleared for a visual once calling the field in sight then the controller no longer has to protect the airspace in the missed approach procedure. This may enable them to get off a departure or clear an aircraft through the departure path of the runway since you will no longer be expected to fly the full published missed approach.

In addition, unless the frequency is jam packed I personally think that it is good practice to call the field visual because it gives the arrival controller an idea of where the aircraft behind you can expect to get the field in sight and improves the controller's ability to form an arrival plan for the aircraft coming in behind you. Also, just because the METAR ceiling OVC020 at the airport it doesn't mean that 10 miles away it isn't OVC040. An arrival controller at the ACC isn't looking out the window at the current wx conditions so knowing when to expect an aircraft to become visual can be a useful piece of information.

just my 2 cents but again correct me if I am wrong.
TA/RA

If you see the preceding aircraft then heck yea we want you on the visual approach. We no longer need to provide IFR separation so the minimum spacing can shrink to whatever the pilot is comfortable with. Huge advantage for us. However, the OP was asking about reporting the field.

Even if we clear you for a visual approach, you are still an IFR aircraft. Which means we still need to maintain IFR separation and protect for a missed approach. If there is a tower at the airport, you remain IFR until the tower takes control of the aircraft (they can do so when they have the aircraft in sight). Once you're VFR, yea the IFR controller isn't worried about protecting for a missed approach. But that has nothing to do with what approach you're on. You could be on an ILS approach and the tower could take control and the aircraft becomes VFR.

That said, suppose you're cleared for a visual approach at an airport without a tower. Technically speaking, you remain IFR the entire time. But I don't know what the missed approach procedure is in this case. I'll have to do some research here. I wouldn't be surprised if most pilots just consider themselves VFR. But you're not a VFR aircraft and I believe you're supposed to do some sort of missed approach procedure.

Calling the field as a means for helping the arrival controller plan subsequent arrivals is a good point. That could potentially help and if I'm not busy I'd definitely like someone making that call.

Regarding weather limits, actually the only thing that matters for a visual is the weather at the airport. To approve a visual approach at any airport, we need to have a functioning weather station on the field and to have certain weather limits. If we don't have those, it doesn't matter what the weather is like 5 miles away, we can't approve a visual. However, we can always approve a contact approach if the pilot requests it.

[Parth]

Where are you people getting your false information?

Reporting the airport or preceding traffic is one of the most important things a pilot can do in a high density terminal environment particularly where parallel approaches are in operation and has these advantages:

1. IFR separation (3 miles or 1000') is not required with aircraft on the parallel approach. This means you can turn base and final based on the traffic on your runway only and can routinely save up to 25 track miles. In turn, overall delays are reduced because everybody has less time in the system.

2. The requirement to vector aircraft 2 miles outside of the glide path intercept is waived on a visual approach if the pilot consents. This means you'll get the spot ahead of the straight in aircraft instead of the one behind it.

3. For those who still like to fly an airplane, you can operate it how you want on the ideal profile and not have the hassle of inefficiencies of vectors and speed control when traffic is not a factor.

If you're cleared the ils and call the field, you are still on an instrument approach. It does not convert the approach into a visual.

No controller is going to clear you for a visual and allow you to get too close to the traffic in front to lose separation or have to go around, so don't be fearful of that.

If a speed restriction is required it will be given.

Rodge's Mentor

This is so far off topic from the OPs question.

No one is denying the fact that calling the field or preceding traffic or adjacent traffic or whatever can be very helpful to a controller. But all of those are very situational and have nothing to do with the question the OP asked.

I suppose you're right, the information could be helpful for future arrivals. But that is literally about the only advantage in the situation outlined by the OP.