Hi Is an ILS approach more time consuming compared to a visual approach without using ILS? I believe an ILS approach is a more comfortable approach for passengers. Do ATCs appreciate visual approach when possible? Can pilots in command request ILS approach when needed... when practicing with a second piltot? gura75

Hi Is an ILS approach more time consuming compared to a visual approach without using ILS? I believe an ILS approach is a more comfortable approach for passengers. Do ATCs appreciate visual approach when possible? Can pilots in command request ILS approach when needed... when practicing with a second piltot? gura75

I am assuming your questions are relating to when the airport is in VFR conditions and a visual approach is available. Concerning passengers, i don't believe one approach is more comfortable than another. A competent pilot will ensure that any approach is executed safely and is as comfortable as pssobile given the weather conditions. IFR approaches can be more time consuming depending on a number of variables including traffic conditions and active runways versus the direction of approach. There are many different kinds of approaches other than an ILS. Again depending on the weather conditions and the airport, some can be more timely than a visual.Couple of other items. A pilot can request an approach, but ATC must approve the request. Also you can start an IFR approach and then when the airport is in sight, let ATC know and complete the approach visually. This methodology is typically used to increase traffic flow because it allows tighter spacing.

I am assuming your questions are relating to when the airport is in VFR conditions and a visual approach is available. Concerning passengers, i don't believe one approach is more comfortable than another. A competent pilot will ensure that any approach is executed safely and is as comfortable as pssobile given the weather conditions. IFR approaches can be more time consuming depending on a number of variables including traffic conditions and active runways versus the direction of approach. There are many different kinds of approaches other than an ILS. Again depending on the weather conditions and the airport, some can be more timely than a visual.Couple of other items. A pilot can request an approach, but ATC must approve the request. Also you can start an IFR approach and then when the airport is in sight, let ATC know and complete the approach visually. This methodology is typically used to increase traffic flow because it allows tighter spacing.

A few things you mentioned aren't correct. A visual approach is considered an "IFR" approach. Visual approaches are assigned only to IFR flights. A visual approach is there to let the pilot's descend out of IMC and land under VMC, like you mentioned.Now that that's cleared up. A visual approach can be and usually is a little quicker than an ILS and most other instrument approaches. The pilots can turn much closer to the threshold of the runway, in some cases saving a bit of time. Of course the prerequisite for a visual is to have sight of the field and be able to maintain sight while landing. Weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater (1,000ft isn't VFR), but cloud clearance requirements are "thrown out of the window"! Also traffic seperation minimums are (much) lower on a visual approach.EDIT: If you have access to an FAR/AIM, look up section 5-4-23 in the AIM. The reasons the approach can be beneficial is in the literature.

A visual approach is considered an "IFR" approach. Visual approaches are assigned only to IFR flights.

Correct. Actually some such visual/IFR approaches require special visibility, for example 5 m visibility which is more than your typical VFR 3 mile visibility.

A few things you mentioned aren't correct. A visual approach is considered an "IFR" approach. Visual approaches are assigned only to IFR flights. A visual approach is there to let the pilot's descend out of IMC and land under VMC, like you mentioned.

Your point might be a bit unclear. You must be VMC before you can request a visual approach .

Your point might be a bit unclear. You must be VMC before you can request a visual approach .

I don't think it's unclear, but you are correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Clear of clouds and visual on terrain, which I figured I covered (if you read my post carefully). Of course this is why I pointed towards the FAR/AIM.Finally, I've never had to request one around here in Greensboro, Charlotte, or Raleigh's airspace. It's typically "Expect the visual RWY XX" when nearing the terminal area. When I call that I have the landing field in sight it's a smooth flow into the visual, "Cleared visual RWY XX." In practice I usually slap on the foggles/hood and ask for an ILS to keep current (lately staying current is way too easy).

Real world, I'm sure you'll find answers both ways from ATC, but I'd venture to say that it's much preferred that you go visual. One, it's a shortcut and you don't need to be vectored all over the place (or as precisely). Two, the phraseology is slightly easier. Three, generally, you can say you have a visual on the field and go visual, but if ILS isn't entirely necessary you'll normally get controllers assigning the visual, so it's not so much as choice as much as assigned in most cases (though you can still say "unable" if for some reason you deem a visual unsafe, etc).Why?Consider this:ILS:Blue Ridge 8042, fly heading 190, vectors for the ILS Runway 1 Right approach.BLR8042, turn right heading 280.BLR8042, 5NM south east of MOSBY, fly heading 340, maintain 3000 until established, cleared ILS Runway 1 Right Approach.Vis:Blue Ridge 8042, fly heading 190 vectors visual Runway 1 Right approach.BLR8042, turn right heading 280, field will be 3 oclock 5mi, report it in sight. [This vector also comes about 7NM closer to the runway at this particular airport]BLR8042, cleared visual approach runway 1R.As far as passenger comfort, to be honest, most landings are accomplished manually (as opposed to the sim-ism that they're mostly manual). I'd venture to make the argument that the pilot who flies the approach fully by hand will be more used to the trim and feel of the aircraft having flown it over the last few miles, than that of the pilot who popped off the AP close to the company minimums and had to learn the feel in the last few miles. You could really argue both ways, though.As mentioned in the other thread (over in the 744 section), however, the autoland function is not designed to be smooth.

Your point might be a bit unclear. You must be VMC before you can request a visual approach .

Agree with all of the above. Should have used VMC in place of VFR. I didn't say a visual approach wasn't an IFR approach. :(

Finally, I've never had to request one around here in Greensboro, Charlotte, or Raleigh's airspace.

Around here, Chicago Executive (KPWK) is under the O'hare Bravo(KORD). We typically get the ILS16 and then call for the Visual when the airport is in sight. If I remember correctly KORD Approach works this way to assist airspace flow control for KORD, KPWK, KUGN and the other airports in the area.

yeah, the whole confusion is that "visual" may mean different things in different context, in some cases it may just mean - I have airport in sight, I can proceed visually, but in other cases it means specific charted visual approach like for example the KSFO Quiet Bridge visual approach with its own Jeppesen plate.Visual approaches are for sissies :( how about contact IFR approaches, but these are not flown by big airliners ...

Hi Is an ILS approach more time consuming compared to a visual approach without using ILS? I believe an ILS approach is a more comfortable approach for passengers. Do ATCs appreciate visual approach when possible? Can pilots in command request ILS approach when needed... when practicing with a second piltot? gura75

"Is an ILS approach more time consuming compared to a visual approach without using ILS?"It can be, if the ACFT is coming from opposite or sideways the active runway."I believe an ILS approach is a more comfortable approach for passengers."--> If flown by autopilot possible a little bit more yes. That's because of the nature of an autopilot vs pilot, and has nothing to do with the actual approach procedure."Do ATCs appreciate visual approach when possible?"--> When there is little traffic, maybe. When there is a lot of traffic, ATC wants to line up traffic one after another, so a visual approach request would mess up their way of working. Now, I'm talking European stuff. I can imagine that in the US with regions where weather conditions are almost always "clear sky", things might differ."Can pilots in command request ILS approach when needed"--> All flights in airliners are flown under IFR rules: you don't fly a boeing from heathrow to Chicago visual do you.... That means that upon arrival an IFR approach MUST be available AND granted. If ATC wants an aicraft to fly a visual approach, ATC needs to request the pilot if they want to do that.So: if a pilot wants an instrument (ILS) approach, sure he will get one.Bert Van BulckP.S.: reading more into the answers: a visual approach has nothing to do with the visual (end) part of an instrument approach. A visual approach is defined by an aircraft being ATC-vectored towards a runway/aerodrome until the pilot is visual with that runway/aerodrome and proceeds/lands visualy.

P.S.: reading more into the answers: a visual approach has nothing to do with the visual (end) part of an instrument approach. A visual approach is defined by an aircraft being ATC-vectored towards a runway/aerodrome until the pilot is visual with that runway/aerodrome and proceeds/lands visualy.

No one said it does. Read carefully. Everyone so far has, more or less, been correct. What you say is also correct, but in a condensed format. The question has been answered in pretty much the same way you put it. :(

No one said it does. Read carefully. Everyone so far has, more or less, been correct. What you say is also correct, but in a condensed format. The question has been answered in pretty much the same way you put it. :(

In that case I misunderstood "A few things you mentioned aren't correct. A visual approach is considered an "IFR" approach"from you :)Bert Van Bulck

In that case I misunderstood "A few things you mentioned aren't correct. A visual approach is considered an "IFR" approach"from you :)Bert Van Bulck

It is an IFR approach... I feel compelled to break down the following acronyms for you. That way you will see what I mean. If you're already aware, I apologize.IFR- Instrument Flight Rules.IMC- Instrument Meteorological ConditionsVFR-Visual Flight RulesVMC-Visual Meteorological ConditionsAgain, a visual approach is an "IFR approach"; An approach flown on an instrument flight plan by an instrument rated pilot and aircraft. Not an "instrument approach". i.e. an approach flown solely by instruments.

"Do ATCs appreciate visual approach when possible?"--> When there is little traffic, maybe. When there is a lot of traffic, ATC wants to line up traffic one after another, so a visual approach request would mess up their way of working. Now, I'm talking European stuff. I can imagine that in the US with regions where weather conditions are almost always "clear sky", things might differ.

I know you're referencing European ways in your post, but that is definitely not true in the United States. ATC will stack visuals out several miles, one after another. In the States, ATC can clear you visual if you have the preceding aircraft in sight, so they'll string them up that way. Visual is still the preference, as it takes the burden off of the controller and places it primarily on the pilot. That isn't to say that the ATCer might also have the aircraft intercept the LOC for the visual (used in the case of a long vector and the aircraft may not be able to call the field in sight at that distance, but can still easily intercept the LOC for the time being, until the field is in sight).Here at IAD, you'll see visuals strung out on the parallel runways for miles, all set up with visuals either of the field, or of the aircraft ahead of it. Visuals will not ruin flows. What most people are missing here is that approaches into busy airfields are most often assigned by ATC, not chosen by the pilot. The pilot may request something else, but it's not like you get the handoff to the TRACON and call up with "Potomac Approach, United 922 heavy with you 11,000, request ILS 1R." Quite the opposite, actually. If you check in on the freq without the ATIS code, you'll hear the following:"United 922 heavy, Potomac Approach, good evening. Descend via the SHNON2 arrival, Dulles altimeter 2-9-8-9. Expect vectors visual runway 19C."If you listen to the ATIS, your approach is "assigned" through that.

Concur with Scandinavian.At uncontrolled airports in the US, visual approaches can save a lot of time.For example, let's say you're 50 miles south of an airport that's landing RWY18. From the METAR, you know you'll have visual conditions. You'll drop down to the MEA so when you get close to the field, you can just call it in sight, get clearance for the visual and join a downwind and land from a normal traffic pattern. Otherwise, you're looking at a full approach with maybe 20 miles of procedure turn, etc. Waste of time.But that's in the States. Your mileage may vary.