Dark side of visual approaches.

[Mooneymite]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2023-07-28/ainsight-dark-side-visual-approaches?utm_campaign=AIN Alerts&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=289819171&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8PiHi2-VmhFxMYrEnPdi4rOsK0uh6Gv3U-ClouCkSCOoOwWaInKznS7ZIfcw96igV1QrJimdJJF4ePT8gh6elB-xLdyg&utm_content=289819171&utm_source=hs_email

**********************

From AIN:

AINsight: Dark Side of Visual Approaches

A visual approach is an effective tool that air traffic control (ATC) utilizes to maximize aircraft traffic flow and reduce controller workload. For pilots, the greatest benefit of flying a visual approach is that it allows for tighter sequencing between aircraft, which equates to less time in the air and a reduction in fuel burn.

According to a recent issue of the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System’s (ASRS) Callback newsletter, “Many pilots consider a visual approach to be less demanding than instrument approaches flown in poor weather conditions…But visual approaches can present a number of hazards, particularly when localizer and glideslope indications are not used to backup visual impressions.”

For many reasons, a visual approach is much more complex than perceived by pilots. According to another NASA report, there is a dark side to the visual approach. In this study, “Problems with Visual Approaches: The Visual Trap,” it states, “The visual approach is intended to benefit everyone, but frequently results in the pilots experiencing the opposite effect. NASA ASRS reports frequently cite confusion with added stress to the flight crews (when flying a visual approach).”

This added stress is the result of the burden of traffic separation being transferred from the air traffic controller to the pilot. According to the FAA ATC handbook, “A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport of intended landing.” Once cleared for a visual approach, pilots must see and avoid other aircraft.

NASA ASRS is a repository of great reports by well-intended pilots who have fallen into the visual approach trap. From those reports, several hazards have been identified—each filled with important lessons learned for the rest of us.

Common Visual Approach Hazards

Visual approach at night. One of the greatest lessons learned through the NASA ASRS reporting system regarding visual approaches is to always back up the visual approach with all available course (lateral) and glideslope (vertical) guidance—ideally an instrument approach procedure—and especially at night.

Likewise, it is recommended, if flying a visual approach, to join the final approach course outside of the final approach fix at or above an appropriate charted altitude. This will help with runway alignment and aid in approach stability. Seconds saved are not worth the added stress of flying a short approach.

Personally, I will not accept a visual approach to any airport at night unless there is both lateral and vertical guidance to the runway. This assures terrain clearance and proper guidance to the runway.

In mountainous terrain, at night, it is recommended to fly an instrument approach and not accept a clearance to fly a visual approach.

Wrong surface landing. Certainly embarrassing and logistically challenging, one of the greatest hazards is to land at the wrong airport, on the wrong runway, or on a taxiway. In these cases, most likely, the airport or runway is misidentified or lost after an initial correct identification.

Most landings at the wrong airport begin with a visual approach.

Traffic. Too often, reporters in the ASRS system mention the flight crew agreed to follow traffic that cannot be identified or is lost after visually acquiring the runway.

In some cases, the pilots visually acquire the traffic only to lose it through distractions, limited visibility, or other problems. Another issue is identifying the wrong traffic. This is more common at larger airports and those with parallel runways. Pilots must notify ATC if the preceding traffic is visually lost.

Wake turbulence separation. Pilots are required to see and avoid other traffic during a visual approach. In addition, pilots are responsible for wake turbulence separation. There is no requirement for ATC to provide wake turbulence separation to an aircraft on a visual approach.

According to the ATC handbook, “All aircraft following a heavy, or a small aircraft following a Boeing 757, must be informed of the airplane manufacturer and/or model.” Visual separation is not authorized when the lead aircraft is a super-category aircraft (Airbus A380 or Antonov AN225).

Pro tip: Pilots flying large or heavy aircraft with low approach speeds (at lower landing weights) should advise ATC of your planned approach speed—this will hopefully cue other aircraft behind you that your approach speed is low and in a slow-and-dirty configuration that your aircraft is producing some serious wake turbulence.

Landing without a clearance. Most incidents of landing without a clearance in the NASA ASRS database originated with a visual approach. Often, these aircraft touch down with their crews forgetting to obtain a landing clearance or switching to the tower frequency. Crews often cite complacency as a factor, while others point to an increase in workload or distractions.

Jumping the gun. Often in the anticipation of being issued a clearance for a visual approach—i.e. told by ATC to “expect a visual approach”—the flight crew jumps the gun and begins an early descent before receiving the actual visual approach clearance, leading to an altitude deviation.

Misused resources. Often the submitter of an ASRS report indicates that they were overly optimistic regarding their ability to see and identify traffic, airports, and runways and will reply inappropriately to ATC’s query, “Do you have the [blank] in sight?” Remember, if you call the “airport in sight,” you and your crew must see the runway or traffic.

Pilots are cautioned not to call the airport in sight if it is behind them—i.e. on an extended downwind flying away from the airport. Pilots are required to maintain visual contact with the runway and proper cloud clearance throughout the entire approach.

Flying—and briefing—the published missed approach procedure. Remember, a visual approach is not a standard instrument approach and has no missed approach segment. According to the ATC handbook, “An aircraft unable to complete a landing from a visual approach must be handled as any go-around and appropriate IFR separation must be provided until the aircraft lands or pilot cancels their IFR flight plan.”

A common error is for the pilot flying to brief the visual approach backed up by the ILS and continue to brief the published missed approach procedure. As the pilot monitoring, ask the flying pilot what their plan is in the event of a go-around or discontinued approach when flying a visual approach.

Recommendations

Authors of an early NASA report on visual approaches suggest that the best way to stay alive is to learn from others. As such, they developed a few practical, no-nonsense suggestions to reduce some of these hazards.

For all approaches:

• Review and brief all applicable visual and instrument charts before the approach—ideally prior to top-of-descent and discuss the plan to discontinue the approach or go-around.
• Do not identify the traffic in sight, airport in sight, or runway in sight unless you and the rest of your crew are certain of your identification.
• Keep traffic in sight. If you lose traffic, tell ATC.
• Ensure that at least one pilot monitors the flight path and navaids to aviate, navigate, and communicate.
• Use all available electronic navigation to back up the visual.
• If visual approaches are being conducted but you do not want a visual, insist on an ILS or other instrument approach—especially at night, in mountainous terrain, or at an airport that you are unfamiliar with. Bear in mind, however, that during your instrument approach, other aircraft in your proximity may be conducting a visual approach.
• Expect visibility to deteriorate and be reduced if you are descending into a smog/haze layer or into the sun during the turn to base and final. This may lead you to misidentify the runway to which you are cleared to land.

For parallel approaches:

• Be aware that parallel approaches mean that other traffic will be near your aircraft. These approaches require increased vigilance and the flight crew must maintain a careful traffic watch outside the aircraft.
• Be aware of overshooting the runway alignment and encroaching into the parallel runway’s approach path.

When To Expect a Visual Approach

ATC may provide a vector for a visual approach if the reported ceiling at the airport of the intended landing is at least 500 feet above the minimum vectoring altitude or minimum intercept altitude and the visibility is greater than three miles.

Furthermore, ATC may issue a clearance for a visual approach when the pilot reports the airport or runway in sight (at a tower-controlled airport) or the airport in sight (at a non-towered airport). The controller will resolve potential conflicts with other aircraft and ensure that the weather is VMC.

With this in mind, a visual approach is safe if pilots are aware of the potential pitfalls or gotchas. Every day, there are thousands of visual approaches that are well executed, flown safely, and don’t end with a submission to ASRS or an operator’s ASAP program.

Negative impressions of a visual approach presented here are based on reading NASA ASRS submissions from pilots where an approach ended poorly with an undesirable result. From those results, hazards are identified, and the rest of the aviation community can learn from these lessons to prevent future occurrences.

The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily endorsed by AIN Media Group.

 

[Ibra]

What is the difference between IFR visual approach and VFR/SVFR approach in similar daylight conditions? 

Putting aside night as it’s very special 

Edited January 14 by Ibra

[201er]

16 minutes ago, Ibra said:

What is the difference between IFR visual approach and VFR/SVFR approach in similar daylight conditions? 

Putting aside night as it’s very special 

Appendix D to Part 91—Airports/Locations: Special Operating Restrictions

Section 3. Locations at which fixed-wing Special VFR operations are prohibited. 

The Special VFR weather minimums of § 91.157 do not apply to the following airports:…

Not available at some airports. IFR traffic receives priority. And you can potentially go missed and climb IFR on a visual but not SVFR.

Also, a visual approach can get you in descending out of instrument conditions. SVFR may be limited to the terminal area because you would need an instrument clearance to continue out of the area into controlled airspace.
 

https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/risk-management/special-vfr/

[PeteMc]

So these NASA ASRS are from GA pilots?  Like us Mooney drivers?  Or for larger operators?

I find it hard to believe that a GA pilot forgets to get a landing clearance.  Well... Okay, I find it hard to believe that any pilot going into any airport forgets.  When talking to Kenney you'd hear them give a Landing Clearance to every plane, large or small.  

I do get the traffic issue.  I've heard from people I know that fly the big big kerosene burners that it is not common for them to watch for Traffic (though my friends knew they were supposed to), but also it was hard to see Traffic sometimes from their cockpits. 

[Ibra]

10 hours ago, 201er said:

Not available at some airports. IFR traffic receives priority. And you can potentially go missed and climb IFR on a visual but not SVFR.

Also, a visual approach can get you in descending out of instrument conditions. SVFR may be limited to the terminal area because you would need an instrument clearance to continue out of the area into controlled airspace.

I would expect GA traffic to find VFR & SVFR joins and approaches more challenging than visual IFR when ceiling is higher than radar and visibility is high to see airports? 

I guess contact IFR approach would be similar to VFR & SVFR in terms of challenges

Most of challenges (wrong airport, wrong runway, lack of clearance…) highlighted in IFR visual approach feedbacks highlight large difficulties to operate under VFR or SVFR as well, especially, as the majority of airliners tend to operate IFR on procedures or vectors all time, who then get caught when operating IFR visual (maybe the case for few GA pilots who don’t fly VFR or SVFR at all)

This reminds me of night VFR operations in small uncontrolled GA airports with no IFR procedures and minimal lights, if one is used to flying night under IFR on ILS or LPV to big ATC with high intensity approach & runway lights, they will get surprised when making straight-in or night pattern with minimal lights, these require different mindset…

Edited January 14 by Ibra

[midlifeflyer]

I know it exists, but I have never quite understood why instrument pilots have so much difficulty with something a student pilot does on a solo cross country. 

[GeeBee]

6 hours ago, PeteMc said:

So these NASA ASRS are from GA pilots?  Like us Mooney drivers?  Or for larger operators?

I find it hard to believe that a GA pilot forgets to get a landing clearance.  Well... Okay, I find it hard to believe that any pilot going into any airport forgets.  When talking to Kenney you'd hear them give a Landing Clearance to every plane, large or small.  

I do get the traffic issue.  I've heard from people I know that fly the big big kerosene burners that it is not common for them to watch for Traffic (though my friends knew they were supposed to), but also it was hard to see Traffic sometimes from their cockpits. 

I've landed without a landing clearance, once at DFW and once at ATL and in both cases, the controller said, "Thank you". If you are with a TRACON and they tell you to contract tower, they've handed the strip to the local controller, he knows you are inbound but if he/she is talking a mile a minute and you can't get a word in edgewise, make sure the pavement is clear, then land. If you go around, he has to write it up and he does not want paperwork. ATL tower supervisor in recurrent training told us the same thing.

That all said, I don't do night visual approaches unless there is a glide slope of some kind that I can identify from the FAF. Lufthansa has the same policy and got into a big beef with NorCal on approach into SFO and ended up diverting to OAK.

[PeteMc]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

If you go around, he has to write it up and he does not want paperwork.

I've never heard that they need to write up a go-around.  Is this a new(er) policy?  Seems like a lot of work when a go-around, as far as I'm concerned, is always the plan and the landing is the option if all looks good. 

And I'm trying to remember now with all the flight training at KFRG, but I don't think the Twr cleared all the students for "the option" it was just "cleared to land."  And there were always a few go-arounds when technically there was enough Rwy separation for the next landing, but the students (solo) got spooked. 

 

[GeeBee]

Tower needs to record if it was their problem, or yours. If it was for instance an aircraft on the runway, they need to look back to see if they fouled up the separation or the aircraft. I also got some sad news for you. If you fly for hire, you have to write up a go around too at many airlines. You also have to write up things like TCAS resolutions and a whole host of other things for when the moron in the backs gets mad and writes the airline. As the walls around a toilet says, "A job is never finished until the paperwork is done (so buy a bidet)."

[skykrawler]

31 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

I've never heard that they need to write up a go-around.  Is this a new(er) policy?  Seems like a lot of work when a go-around, as far as I'm concerned, is always the plan and the landing is the option if all looks good. 

And I'm trying to remember now with all the flight training at KFRG, but I don't think the Twr cleared all the students for "the option" it was just "cleared to land."  And there were always a few go-arounds when technically there was enough Rwy separation for the next landing, but the students (solo) got spooked. 

 

Perhaps because the go-around was due to not issuing a landing clearance.

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, PeteMc said:

So these NASA ASRS are from GA pilots?  Like us Mooney drivers?  Or for larger operators?

They are for everyone.

[Mooneymite]

13 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I know it exists, but I have never quite understood why instrument pilots have so much difficulty with something a student pilot does on a solo cross country. 

Hmmmm.  Maybe "difficulty" is not the right word.  I think even the most disciplined cockpit is more relaxed on a visual approach than on a CAT 3 approach to minimums.  Even though the CAT 3 may be completely automated, the vigilance level is generally higher.

There's the problem...experienced pilots might let down their guard on a visual, but a student pilot on a solo cross country is on high alert.

Edited January 15 by Mooneymite

[PeteMc]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Tower needs to record if it was their problem, or yours.

Just asked about it with the Controllers on FB (so it must be True!).  They said the report was a non issue for them.  Yes they did fill it out for an Non Expected Go Around with GA and more so with Jets/Turbines.  More an internal ATC thing since the Rwy Environment is a high point of Accidents/Incidents, so they're keeping data points.

And for @skykrawler, lack of a landing clearance wasn't discussed.  But if you really don't have a Landing Clearance, then I guess it would be doing a Low Approach and NOT technically a Go-Around. 

 

[GeeBee]

When I was Chief Pilot of a corporate operation, we prohibited night visuals if you had not been in the airport in the last 30 days and some special airports like Truckee, CA we prohibited them period. Have to shoot the approach.

[PT20J]

The GTNs have a visual approach capability to create a facsimile of a LPV approach for lateral and vertical guidance to a runway. I don’t fool with it during the day, but it is a good backup at night. Obstacle clearance is not guaranteed, so you have to still watch where you’re going.

[Fly Boomer]

9 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Obstacle clearance is not guaranteed, so you have to still watch where you’re going.

Always a good idea. 

[toto]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

The GTNs have a visual approach capability to create a facsimile of a LPV approach for lateral and vertical guidance to a runway. I don’t fool with it during the day, but it is a good backup at night. Obstacle clearance is not guaranteed, so you have to still watch where you’re going.

I almost always use the visual approach function on essentially every arrival. I like the runway confirmation and it’s an easy way to draw the extended centerline - particularly useful at unfamiliar airports and any airport with parallel runways. 

[Ibra]

19 hours ago, PT20J said:

Obstacle clearance is not guaranteed, so you have to still watch where you’re going.

I recall it did some sanity checks against obstacles in database as well? it won’t show +V if it penetrate terrain or obstacles with some margin, however, this does not work if database is not accurate or not up to date (most of pilots only pick nav data) and also +V is only advisory as it’s not signed-off and certified as safe

Yet testing of +V in good conditions is enough for me to get comfortable with using it to go back at night while looking ahead (unless they install a net with no lights to catch late aircraft on their short final)

It’s a super nice tool, I used to operate at 1800ft strip in UK where night lights consisted of two bulbs on runway edges, GTN visual approach made it easier, it’s pity that one can’t change glide to steeper values > 3deg, like 5deg?

I missed it with an OBS on G430W in my aircraft now, it’s on the plan for my next upgrade 

The tool is similar to 3D guidance that some airliners have in their FMS, which generate “synthetic ILS signal” to every runway in database, some operators have the ability to use it for advisory 3D guidance while monitoring official raw data (e.g. ADF & MDA on funky NDB procedures that are not in GPS database)

I was guilty of doing the same with GTN in Scotland Isles, they don’t have GPS procedures and they fly NDB procedures  the twin otter commuters who run regular flights there, will hand-fly an ADF with 25kts crosswind where the cockpit looks like this, no GPS at all…

 

 

 

Edited January 16 by Ibra

[GeeBee]

The instrument approach procedure, properly flown guarantees obstacle clearance, period. 

[PT20J]

Approaches with vertical guidance such as ILS, LPV are carefully designed and get flight checked every so often. Garmin’s visual and +V only use the terrain and obstacle databases that may have inaccuracies and have not been flight checked which is why their vertical guidance is considered advisory. 

[Ibra]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The instrument approach procedure, properly flown guarantees obstacle clearance, period

Of course, but I am sure one is allowed to use +V while above MDAs? it's better than stopwatch on NDB 

Even flying cruise at MDAs bellow +V using Dive-and-Drive techniques is considered safe for non-precision (well according to Rod Machdo), I think what is not good is going bellow MDA (on +V or luck) without good visual on runway & obstacles…

On GTN NXI, +V is available for GPS overlay of conventional non-precision procedures (NDB, LOC, VOR...), it's even better than using Visual Approach: one has offsets as well as missed procedures coded, all one has to do is to load from GPS then tune and monitor raw data...

ILS & LPV are always better as the glide is certified to be safe,  including the portion under DH 

For night VFR operations, +V comes handy when airport does not have an instrument runway with approach lights, vasi, papi...

For IFR visual approach, I think loading LNAV+V on GTN is super nice feature that could solve many issues highlighted in article above 

Edited January 16 by Ibra

[GeeBee]

MDA is one thing, what about the initial and intermediate segments? I've been on initial segments that are below the mountain tops. It is not just vertical nav you have to watch out for at night especially moonless nights, it is also your lateral position. If you want to be 100% sure, fly the instrument approach, properly. 

[Mooneymite]

I guess the one thing we've established is that we should NEVER look out the window at night......,or at any other time during a visual approach.  Trust the data base!

(Says a guy who got the beejeepers scared out of him by a corrupted data base.)

[Hank]

4 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

I guess the one thing we've established is that we should NEVER look out the window at night....

I thought that was only for off-field night landings, if we didn't like what we saw?

[MikeOH]

12 hours ago, Ibra said:

ILS & LPV are always better as the glide is certified to be safe,  including the portion under DH 

While if the approach has the shaded area shown between the DA point and threshold you are guaranteed obstacle clearance on a 34:1 slope, I'm not convinced that ILS GS and LPV GP are actually 'certified to be safe' past DA.

My understanding is that for CAT I the GS signal is only 'certified' to DA, CAT II to 100', and only some CAT III is good to the surface.  For one thing, objects on the surface definitely influence the radiation patterns; otherwise why would ILS clear areas be required?  Therefore, it seems like believing that CAT I will be 'certified' below DA is unrealistic.

For LPV, what happens to the GP display after DA/MAP?  Oddly, I'm always looking outside at that point so I've never actually seen if remains active or goes away?

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm all wet on any/all of this! Shields up!