I was finishing a flight on Vatsim yesterday evening and while doing so, the controller responsible for my plane gave me clearance for a visual approach for the runway I was to be landing on. I'm still relatively new to aviation and had never flown into the airport in question (KMIA) so I asked if I could get the ILS. The controller was friendly and flexible, he immediately cancelled my visual clearance and gave me the go-ahead for the ILS. I completed the approach and landed the plane without issue.

 

While thinking about my flight a few hours later, a thought/question occurred to me (and I pose this question in a general/broad avation setting, not specific to flight-sims):

 

If an ILS approach is indeed available, why would one ever NOT use it? Obviously during low visibility a precision approach is entirely necessary. In better weather conditions, it's not considered a necessity. Why?

 

I understand that relying on the AP is a recipe for disaster, but AFAIC, utilizing the autopilot, and various technologies to assist you not only sounds ideal, but would seem safer. 

 

I've been practicing landings recently where I'd glide in with APP armed until roughly 1000 feet RA, then manually take over the plane and bring it the rest of the way in. Even then I still have the FD on in order to assist me with bringing the plane down. Once around 300-450 RA, I'd largely disregard the GS indicator and visually judge where I need to be. This is fairly standard procedure and makes sense.

 

I apologize for rambling, but what I'm ultimately trying to ask is... if an ILS approach is available at the airport in question, and if your plane is capable of an ILS approach, why would you ever approach in a purely visual way? Quite frankly, an ILS approach seems significantly safer. I don't mean to say all landings should be automated, but if your plane can assist you via an ILS, why not? Even upon disengaging the AP and AT, you still have the benefit of the FD which helps guide you. The only difference b/t a visual and ILS approach at this point is that the latter provides you with a precise approach path, even if you manually have control of the plane.

 

It seems like a no-brainer, it seems safer, and why it would not be used (unless not available) is beyond me. 

 

Can anyone shed light on this...? I could very well be ignorant to something/misinformed, but with my current knowledge, an ILS approach in all circumstances (again, not an automated landing, but an ILS assisted approach) seems to make complete sense.

Can anyone shed light on this...? I could very well be ignorant to something/misinformed, but with my current knowledge, an ILS approach in all circumstances (again, not an automated landing, but an ILS assisted approach) seems to make complete sense.

 

 

Hi,

 

If you are on an instrument flight plan, or have contacted Approach for a practice instrument approach, then a clearance for a "visual approach" is still an instrument approach procedure.  There are weather minima that apply to be able to accept a visual approach, or to be offered one by ATC.  Also, a pilot must have either the airport,  or the preceding aircraft that is cleared for that same airport ahead of you, in sight,  and accepting a visual approach when neither are in sight, or continuing with a visual if you lose sight of the airport and/or the preceding aircraft, is a "no-no".

 

With all of that said, the visual offers you much more latitude in the approach, and from ATC's perspective allows approached to proceed in a less formal fashion which usually translates to getting more aircraft into the airport.  As you did,  the PIC can always ask for a more structured approach such as an ILS.  And I believe most instrument pilots would agree that if an ILS is available on a visual approach,  then tuning the nav radio to the ILS is a good thing-  either if you lose visual sight of the airport / aircraft ahead of you, or just as another aid to the approach.

 

The one "gotcha" on a visual is that there is often no "missed approach procedure", so if you have to go missed then you may have some quick thinking to do.  That's another reason to have your nav radios tuned to something, although blindly following a missed procedure from another approach is not always a good thing.

 

The premise, beside relaxing some of the formalities of an ILS or other approach, as well as speeding up approaches and landings to an airport,  is that most pilots have done thousands of visual landings in training, and so a visual landing should not be something that you find harder to do, as long as the weather isn't a factor.

 

Thanks,  Bruce.

Regardless if I am on a RW approach or in the Sim, if there is an ILS available I will tune into it, even on a visual approach.  I do this for a few reasons, the first is as an instrument rated pilot the more exposure I get to my instruments the better.  It also serves as another visual indicator of the approach path, just like the PAPI or VASI does.  The more redundancy I have, the safer it is for my passengers.  

 

Usually on the Sim when you are cleared for the visual approach you have the runway in sight, and when you hear the words cleared for the visual to runway ## and your ILS approach is programed in the FMC, you will be able to fly it, provided you do don't turn around and head away from the airport!  As an example if I am on the ILS RWY 16 approach at KCIU (Chippewa County Airport) and I am cleared for the visual and say on my flight plan the next waypoint is KOLOE then I will just hit direct to and choose KOLOE and follow the glideslope down.

 

If you are instrumented rated (and current) you can file an IFR flight plan regardless of the weather, so on clear days you will usually get a visual approach unless you ask otherwise.  If I want a certain approach I will usually request it in the remarks section of the flight plan.

Ah, so clearance for a visual approach doesn't eliminate the pilot's ability to use navigational equipment to help the aircraft land? Gotcha! 

 

I was of the impression that visual clearance essentially forced the pilot to abandon navigational equipment and fly the approach entirely manually and visually. Obviously I was wrong!

 

So if I am cleared for a visual approach in the future, I can still proceed with the visual clearance using approach hold via the nav radios, and the FD GS/LOC bugs upon disconnecting the AP?

So if I am cleared for a visual approach in the future, I can still proceed with the visual clearance using approach hold via the nav radios, and the FD GS/LOC bugs upon disconnecting the AP?

Affirmative. In fact, it's generally a good idea to have your navigation aids set up even for a visual approach. If you wish to use the approach hold, nothing's stopping  you from doing so. In fact, how would anybody know you were even using it. As far as the air traffic controller is concerned, in a visual approach, you have the field in sight and if there's any traffic ahead of you, you're maintaining visual separation.

 

Really, the only time I would prefer an ILS over a visual is if the weather conditions are so bad that a visual isn't possible.

+1

 

( that's what I was trying to say )

Also airliners are required to have the loc tuned in to one of the NAVs now. There where a few accidents a while back on clear days with visual approaches.

Also airliners are required to have the loc tuned in to one of the NAVs now. There where a few accidents a while back on clear days with visual approaches.

 

Good luck with that requirement in Australia.

 

Here's some fun examples.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/AeroProcChartsTOC.htm#J

 

YMML Melbourne (Australia's second largest city) has no ILS equipment or Localizer equipment associated with one direction of it's longest runway (34). There is a VOR approach with a 6 degree offset, however most domestic aircraft get assigned a visual approach from overhead a nearby airport (YMEN) at a waypoint called SHEED, which is just 4 miles away from YMML, to join a 3 mile final off a 90 degree right hand turn into a 3.8 degree glidepath.

 

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/MMLSR14-135.pdf

 

This approach is flown several times daily using 767 and A330 aircraft, not to mention the usual stream of 737's and A320's. I have seen 747-400 aircraft fly this approach too on occasion (usually 747's flying domestic legs from Sydney - a rarity these days, but there are still some -400F's that do it).

 

Of course if it's an ILS able approach with a good 10nm final, then "Visual Approach" is just meaning that the ATC wants you to intercept the final approach on your own. Whether you use ILS, The Navigation display on your aircraft to line up the magenta or white dotted centreline extension line with the airplane symbol, the window, DME and a clock, or whatever to navigate by, ATC cares not. Just get onto the centreline of the runway, try not to overshoot too much, and fly the plane to the runway, or get the autopilot to fly there, or the first officer, whatever.

 

In some cases, ATC can use visual approaches (independent visual approaches) to get the pilot to ensure separation from aircraft on a parallel runway approach on their own own (instead of ATC having to run speed control and vectors to keep you staggered on the approach with 3 or 5 mile separation).

 

Once the pilot is/reports visual, the ATC can just clear them for the approach, with the expectation that you won't hit the other aircraft on the parallel approach near you. You can use the ILS on Autopilot to fly the approach while looking out the window at the other aircraft to make sure you don't hit them. Which shouldn't happen anyway since they are on another runway to you, but stranger things have been known to happen.

 

Normally ATC would need to leave space in trail (3 miles, 5 miles, depends on how close the runways are) just in case one of the aircraft decided to randomly turn toward the wrong runway without warning.

 

When Visual, the pilot(s) have the responsibility to see the other aircraft and react to any unexpected turns. This way the parallel landings can be closer together (even "simultaneous!" literally right next to each other).

 

This would not be possible under only IFR, since the ATC cannot react to an unexpected, uncommanded turn in time transmitting an avoidance order.

 

If one of the pilots is looking at the other aircraft though, no words need be spoken.

1: See plane banking into your path

2: Grab yoke/stick and turn own aircraft away

3: Deal with the autopilot disconnect warnings when possible

4: Clean gear/flap/climb thrust up

5: Tell ATC that the other guy turned into your path and you just went around.

6: Clean up your pants.

 

A visual approach can and will ease the work load of the controller, and expidite the flow of traffic into a congested airport. Please don't take offense dreighver, or other folks, but why not use the windscreen with the awesome view of the runway?   Flying on Vatsim for a number of years, I'm flabbergasted as to why everyone lets the FMC fly the airplane. What fun is that? Try hand flying, it truly is much more rewarding I think,  it also gives you a better understanding of what the airplane is doing when it is coupled up on autopilot. Turn the automation off and just fly.

The biggest beneficiary of the visual approach believe it or not is the controller. Once a pilot accepts a visual approach, the controller is relieved of all separation responsibilities between the aircraft.

 

So when weather is VMC, the pilots have the ILS tuned and have the ILS needles presented for reference, and are probably using the guidance from the ILS, but now they are responsible for maintain their own wake separation. Normally don't close to less than 2-3 miles from the aircraft in front of you will keep the tower controllers happy (even though separation is totally on you)

 

Actually the hardest approach for new hire airline pilots is the visual approach. They can fly the crap out of instrument approaches, but give a just off IOE airline pilot a visual approach, some can do it, some can't, as during initial training there is no time dedicated to doing a normal visual approach.

Thank you all for the very informative feedback. 

 

As someone who hopes to pursue aviation as a career in the near future, the need to manage the plane manually and without the help of the autopilot is important to me. 

 

When I first entered the world of aviation, roughly 3 months ago, I was entirely reliant upon the automation of sophisticated aircraft. After a couple of near-disasters due to the aforementioned (thank goodness they were in a simulated environment), I now understand why manual control is such a heavily emphasized point in the aviation world. Those who are a slave to the AP are borderline berated in the world of aviation. I'm not sure if that's entirely fair, but I do now understand the vehemence with which the anti full-automation crowd expresses their view(s).

 

As I mentioned above, I've done a lot of landing practice recently, where I'll d/c the AT and AP at 1000 feet RA and take the plane from there. On a side note, the Level D 767 is really fantastic in this regard. They have a saved panel state that loads the plane immediately as you're capturing the localizer -- essentially a built-in landing practice saved flight that comes with the plane. Brilliant! Wish the iFly 737 had something like this. 

 

I thought visual clearance prohibited the use of the automated capabilities and flight-director function of the plane. Obviously I was wrong (not the first time!). So, the only real distinction between visual clearance and ILS clearance is that the former puts the onus to remain separated from other aircraft on the PIC, while the latter places it in the hands of the tower controller (or whomever is responsible for the landing airplanes at that time). Gotcha! That is certainly something I'm happy to have a better understanding of, and now I feel half-bad for putting extra responsibility on that controller! Oh well... live and learn! 

 

Thanks so much for the clarification guys. 

 

Off on another tangent, and perhaps this question is better posed elsewhere on the forum, but are there any high-quality GA addons for FS9? I'll spare the long-version of my story, but I became interested in aviation in mid-March while taking a semester off after trying college. Wasn't particularly happy with/at the school I enrolled in and decided to take some time off, reevaluate and go back to a different college/university. While taking this break, as I mentioned above, I stumbled across the world of aviation. Since that time, I can't get enough. I invested in a bunch of flight-sim toys, and have been immersing myself in all things flight for the past few months. I'm going to give it another 3'ish months, and if at that time I still find myself as enthralled and intrigued as I am now, I'm going to pursue obtaining my necessary certifications to fly commercially, while getting a bachelor's degree on the side. I'm likely more proficient in IFR than VFR (based on my FS experience to this point), and I know that VFR is generally the first thing you're taught upon taking flying lessons. Doing more VFR-related stuff will only help me, so I'm looking for a nice GA. Apologies for the essay above... again, this may be better suited elsewhere, but feel free to PM me with recommendation(s) for GA addons.

Just FYI, although the differences you mention my be all you are interested in , there are many more differences between visual and ILS approaches.....

 

Also, regarding manual vs automated flight, that's why flight training consists of mainly or only manual flight for many hours prior to be even able to engage the AP,,,,

 

Bruce

Just FYI, although the differences you mention my be all you are interested in , there are many more differences between visual and ILS approaches.....

 

Also, regarding manual vs automated flight, that's why flight training consists of mainly or only manual flight for many hours prior to be even able to engage the AP,,,,

 

Bruce

 

Would you mind elaborating on the other differences which I've missed? Looking for all the information I can gather at this point...! 

 

I'm sure that if I decide to pursue aviation in the real-world, the majority of the stuff I'll be doing early on will be a far-cry from what I'm doing now, but, with that said, what I am doing in the simulator can't hurt... at least I wouldn't think so!

If I recall correctly, With a single runway a controller can land about 90 aircraft an hour under visual conditions.  If you have instrument conditions, you get down to 60 an hour or worse.  These are ideal conditions where the pilot is not on the runway for more than 15 seconds and the winds are relatively calm.  A visual approach can be much shorter for the pilot. For the controller, she won't have  a string of pearls 30 miles or more  out, which may only be four or five planes, depending on type.  The pilot gets an added bonus: less fuel used and some time savings.  Like others said, the onus is on the pilot to maintain visual separation.  This allows the  controller to squeeze in more aircraft in the surrounding airspace.  

Usually for new student pilots that have lots of Flight Simulator experience, I've found that you pretty much have to cover up all the instruments, because they tend to keep looking inside and fixating at the instruments when they should be looking outside and using the largest attitude indicator ever invented, aka the natural horizon.

 

Once all the instruments are all covered up with stickies, their ability to maintain altitude (without a lot of deviating off altitude) and heading increases exponentially.  And then you have to make them unlearn the bad habits and tendencies they picked up flying the flight simulator game.

 

On an visual approach, even though separation is no longer the responsibility of the controller, you'll find that you're usually assigned a speed to fly on the approach, something like, "cleared for the visual approach runway 9 right, maintain 180kts until LANSE, contact tower at LANSE."    You'll still use your ILS needles for reference and you are responsible for traffic separation and wake separation, but what the controllers are trying to do is still maintain spacing, not between landing traffic, but to squeeze out departures in between landing traffic.   And there still is some spacing that once it's too close (less than 2 miles), the controllers will tell you to back off / slow down etc.

 

Visual approaches are a big time saver for all concerned, pilot / controller, as you don't have to get vectored out on downwind past the final approach fix and then get vectored back in to intercept.  You just point the airplane at the airport and get yourself positioned to land on the indicated runway.

 

If you do want to check out real world flying, you can always schedule an intro flight at an FBO, I think it's still $99, and depending on your confidence level, the instructor will let you do as much as you want or as little as you want, and see if you like it or not -at least before you decide to commit to taking flight lessons.

 

If you think you want to do aviation as a career, when you go in for your medical certificate, ask to get the first class medical, instead of the third class medical cert that student pilots gets.   If there's any disqualifiers from the first class medical, you'll know about it up front and can start working on the SODAs/waivers before you've invested the money in flight training