Question regarding IFR plan and landing VFR condiotions?

[flightsimmer747]

Hey guys, when a flightplan is IFR and aircraft arrives under vfr conditions, could the pilot always land the full ILS approach even in vfr conditions, for a smoother landing? Is it always optional, basically "field in sight" but the pilot prefers ILS so asks for ILS.
How is this handled?

thanks!

[looproll]

Well yes, you can do that. If it's at a busy controlled airport, it might not be the best idea. Often they will be asking if you have the field in sight. You don't BS them, just let ATC know you would like to do the ILS, they can often accommodate you. At an uncontrolled airport, even if it's visual conditions I might do the procedure if I'm unfamiliar with the place.

[flightsimmer747]

Well yes, you can do that. If it's at a busy controlled airport, it might not be the best idea. Often they will be asking if you have the field in sight. You don't BS them, just let ATC know you would like to do the ILS, they can often accommodate you. At an uncontrolled airport, even if it's visual conditions I might do the procedure if I'm unfamiliar with the place.

I get it now thanks, it just seemed they often go for the visual but probably for the shorter approach if visual is possible, otherwise why not always smooth the landing, unless you need to brush up once and awhile! Of course im thinking more commercial aircraft where passengers are involved.

[Jerricho]

Story doing the rounds some years ago in Brisbane, a BA Concord was asked to report the field in sight. The response was "We are set up for the ILS approach, and will be conducting it as such............"

[flightsimmer747]

Story doing the rounds some years ago in Brisbane, a BA Concord was asked to report the field in sight. The response was "We are set up for the ILS approach, and will be conducting it as such............"

I'm trying to figure this out though, if atc says "rpt field in sight", pilot flying straight in, does mention field is in sight, possibly cleared to land at this point if NO traffic permits him too in this example, flies the ILS regardless since maybe not on intercept course but can soon join the ILS because his altitude and heading can allow him to smoothly intercept a few miles later, this is still not telling atc, would this scenario matter at all, atc will never know???

[Jerricho]

Clearing an aircraft for a visual approach, while most often can expedite things along, can also burn the Arrival controller. If the pilot wishes, they can certainly widen out a little or extend downwind further than they may have if they had been vectored to final. We get WestJet here in YWG take the visual approach, yet still fly over the RNAV STAR track over the DTWs and FAF. Perimeter on the other hand.............well, "Can you point it at the threshold?" Done deal!

[flightsimmer747]

Ok thanks, so really it is optional, and pilot can use his own discretion providing he is still complieing with atc instructions, and should always make his intentions clear as atc can accomodate, sometimes Ils being the easier way out or visual depending the weather and the aircrafts location within the airport vicinity, if i understand correctly!

[CCR]

Hi Jerricho,
maybe better communication between us WJ'ers and your Controller group would alleviate some of the misunderstandings that sometimes exists between us. I try to give the Terminal guys as much heads up notice on what my intentions and expectations are for my arrival into YWG(or anywhere for that matter). I always advise on initial contact that I am planning a particular approach(ie RNP) so at least you know what to clear me for and which FAF/MAP I'm using. Secondly, if I do call the field visual, I always advise the controller what my plan is i.e. DTW-IAF so that you have a better feel for mixing traffic around me. I personally only call the airport insight now if I have been asked by the controller to call the airport in sight(multiple requests usually). At that point, I would hope that the controller would state his expectations ie. tighten up the approach etc. If not, then I'm probably going to fly the lateral path in it's entirety. Why? I guess you would have to ask me on that particular day and approach. The NG is an amazing aircraft and the automation is pretty impressive....when you allow it to do it's thing. The NG, and the way we operate it, has the ability to take what is a simple visual approach and turn it into an unstable approach and go around in fairly short order. Turning a 90 degree turn onto final at or near the FAF can create an sudden work overload on the pilot flying and if he goes manual...on the PNF as well.

In other words, for me to shorten or tighten the approach to help you out, increases my workload and risk level. So in order for me to do that, I basically have to feel up to doing that. If I don't for any reason whether it be tiredness or an inexperienced F/O, then why would I?

As well, does Perimeter not have to comply with the Noise abatement? If i pointed my noise at the threshold and went for it I would be breaking the Noise Abatement rules for YWG. Turn outside the FAF etc..

[AuxBatOn]

Got a question: why do you accept a visual approach if you'll fly the instrument approach anyways? Can't you guys fly looking out anymore???

AuxBaton

[KAFUFO]

just don't ask YWG for a visual you'll get to yxe before you'll get a helping hand

[Jerricho]

Hi CCR,

I wasn't bagging you WJA guys for the way you fly approaches. It's your bird, you know how it has to be flown. I was pointing out to our flightsim friend that in line with his question, we regularly see what he has been asking.

As you have mentioned, you guys are excellent at letting us know what you want to fly (that new short gate approach look real nice from the ground), and if I need you to cut inside the STAR path, there is always compliance in keeping with a stable approach.

As to out little lawndart friends at PAG.......noise abatement procedures apply to turbojet/turbofans . You are certainly correct in your statement regarding turning a jet final inside the beacon breaking noise, although sometimes it does happen.

[CCR]

Hey Jerricho,

I apologize if you thought I thought...Anyhow, your point is well taken. BTW, is there a J.C. in your unit? I think he works lower altitudes possibly near YQT airspace.

AuxBaton, not sure what you fly and maybe you're one of my coworkers...who knows. My experience in this aircraft is about managing the different levels of automation (there are 4) and different modes. Much of the time is spent living in an automated world and when one steps out of that mode, the risk levels increase. Can I fly this aircraft manually and under visual conditions? You bet. Unlike other aircraft/companies though, when I fly manually, I as the PF have to command the PNF to set speed, heading, altitudes, V/S while setting flaps and gear and talking on the radio. So not only do I load myself up with trying to think/talk ahead of the game but I also load up my PNF. If I fly the approach using a lower level of automated flight (heading select) I have to ensure proper lateral and vertical intercepts all at a near critical point of our approach ie 1000 foot stabilization. If it doesn't workout, I have to a Go-around. Have I done it and do I do it? Yes. If a controller has asked me for the 2nd time.."Airport in sight?" I usually say yes because in my own ignorance I think maybe it helps him out with spacing requirements. If he/she doesn't say anything about my path then I'll advise him what I'm going to do. As amending the pre-planned approach into a shortened visual maneuver increases my risk level, I'll only do it if I totally feel on top of the game. After a 12 hour duty day with an early morning wake-up on the other side of the country on day 3, I really don't want to make things hard on myself just to please someone else.

[jetboy1975]

Keep in mind that if you accept the visual approach don't expect the IFR approach to be available as backup. Case in point @YHM. Only one of the LOC30 or ILS12 can be selected at a time. If the ILS12 is the advertised approach but someone wants a simulated LOC30 approach (during VFR conditions and traffic permitting of course) the ILS will be turned off and the center controller will try to clear IFR inbounds to RWY12 for the visual and give them the reason. Once switched to tower freq, pilots continuously ask if the ILS is working because they're getting flags. " you were cleared for the visual" is the usual response and the pilots come back with "ya but....." (we don't know how to land the plane without a glide path)

[AuxBatOn]

Hey Jerricho,

I apologize if you thought I thought...Anyhow, your point is well taken. BTW, is there a J.C. in your unit? I think he works lower altitudes possibly near YQT airspace.

AuxBaton, not sure what you fly and maybe you're one of my coworkers...who knows. My experience in this aircraft is about managing the different levels of automation (there are 4) and different modes. Much of the time is spent living in an automated world and when one steps out of that mode, the risk levels increase. Can I fly this aircraft manually and under visual conditions? You bet. Unlike other aircraft/companies though, when I fly manually, I as the PF have to command the PNF to set speed, heading, altitudes, V/S while setting flaps and gear and talking on the radio. So not only do I load myself up with trying to think/talk ahead of the game but I also load up my PNF. If I fly the approach using a lower level of automated flight (heading select) I have to ensure proper lateral and vertical intercepts all at a near critical point of our approach ie 1000 foot stabilization. If it doesn't workout, I have to a Go-around. Have I done it and do I do it? Yes. If a controller has asked me for the 2nd time.."Airport in sight?" I usually say yes because in my own ignorance I think maybe it helps him out with spacing requirements. If he/she doesn't say anything about my path then I'll advise him what I'm going to do. As amending the pre-planned approach into a shortened visual maneuver increases my risk level, I'll only do it if I totally feel on top of the game. After a 12 hour duty day with an early morning wake-up on the other side of the country on day 3, I really don't want to make things hard on myself just to please someone else.

CCR, I didn't mean to be condescending, after re-reading my post, I think it could have come across that way. I was just trying to figure out why most airliners want fly the approach with a glide slope even on a visual (most of the time doing the whole approach as if they were going to do it on vectors). I fly a different kind of jet, with no automation whatsoever and single pilot but mind you, we have a different mission. Personally, I find the real visual approach being less work than an instrument approach (being single pilot). Next to no set up, keeping the head out for traffic. In Winnipeg for example, you can easily set up for a normal visual appraoch at 5 miles from threshold, flying at 2000' indicated and have plenty of time to configure, stabilize the platform. That gives you a little less than 2 miles before a nice 3 degree intercept. I though the goal of the visual appraoch was to expedite traffic coming in. How does doing the approach you were going to to anyways with vectors/RNAV is going to expedite things??

AuxBatOn

[CCR]

No offense taken AuxBaton,

My first concern is ensuring the safe arrival of the aircraft and next efficiency. What will I have achieved if I have to do a go around due to being unstable? Our arrivals are set up to be as fuel efficient as possible. This means power off as long as possible from TOD. Ideally, I will be cleared to tie up the approach from the DTW to the IAF thus allowing me to continue in a constant descent, thrust idle. Now if a controller clears me a visual approach lets say when I'm coming up abeam the FAF, and expects me to turn base and then final at or slightly outside the FAF, I am instantly above path. So now I have to begin to apply drag (lose fuel efficiency) or keep my speed up to get down. However, I may only have 5 miles, as an example, to reduce from 200 kts to final approach speed with Flaps 30 and gear down. Chances are keeping the speed up will not work as the NG does not slow down as well as even the 200's(from what I'm told from those who have flown both). So I drag up, lose some of my fuel benefit of tightening the approach and now the fun begins. If you have a tail wind on the intercept heading and the LOC capture is armed, there is a very big possibility that the NG will fly through the localizer and now you have the aircraft weaving back and forth trying to recapture the localizer while intercepting the GP while at or near the 1000 foot stabilization point. Tasking overload becomes a reality. Like I've said before, it can be done, it is done, but I won'y always conduct my visual approaches that way. As an aside, our SOP's state that during a night visual approach we cannot descend below the last lowest IFR altitude for the approach IE the MSA. Most flat land MSA's would require us to turn final near the IAF anyways in order not be above path.

When I first arrived at WJA, controllers were turning us to join final at the FAF. Our 200 brothers had no issue doing this as the aircraft's flight characteristics were different and the way it was flown was different. As such, the NG guys always felt compelled to do the same with much different results. Not always un-stable but definitely increased stress. However, our FDM reports showed many unstable events. I would venture that guys are now more prone to allowing the aircraft to fly the lateral paths planned or intercept final further out from the FAF then they did 4 years ago. As well, I think controllers are getting more used to the NG or maybe how we operate them and I find controllers are less prone to say " turn final at the FAF" like they used to.

Cheers!!


To answer your question AuxBaton, airliners tend to fly the entire approach because our aircraft need to be stabilized much earlier than smaller aircraft. Locking on to a localizer/GP or a LNAV/VNAV path early in the approach allows us to achieve that. I have no option other than a go-around if I'm not stable by 1000'.

[scrambled_legs]

just don't ask YWG for a visual you'll get to yxe before you'll get a helping hand

What are you looking for, instruction on how to land the plane? It's a visual... what sort of helping hand can we give you???