Seems like in Europe more traffic means less visuals and in the USA it is the opposite?!

 

Yep.  More traffic in Europe usually means higher reliance on "the plan" (or, the solution that came out of CFMU).  In order to better predict paths and timings, the aircraft must remain on the cleared path.  That means magenta-lining it from departure to destination as much as possible.  It makes sense, really: less variance means better predictability to run a central flow management system.  It allows you to come up with a "perfect" traffic situation.  This, of course, is extremely advantageous given the nature of the amount of countries participating, helping to address the logistics of ensuring each underlying entity is set up for success.

 

Here, except in rare cases, you're generally going to have a vector leg between the STAR and the approach.  This allows for tactical sequencing to resolve the inherent discrepancies in different aircraft types, airline policies, and personal preferences of crews driving different speeds.  Additionally, on visual days, you can pack even more aircraft in using visuals.  One tactic is to have trailing crew call the preceding aircraft on the visual approach in sight.  This waives the requirement of separation by the controller, and allows the controller to clear the flight for the visual by following the preceding visual.  This efficiency is realized by lower workload on the controller (and partially by the pilot), along with allowing more aircraft to occupy the same parcel of airspace, due to the 3nm separation being eliminated.

 

The Mount Vernon Area of Potomac TRACON (serving DCA), and DCA tower are notorious for cramming aircraft into and out of that airport using this method.  Of course, any reduction in spacing between aircraft can be considered "less safe" than a situation where increased spacing exists.  That being said, there are definite critics of the method, to include one pilot who called the controllers out on frequency, which caused a little bit of a verbal scuffle when the aircraft switched over to the ground frequency.  Watching it all happen from Gravelly Point Park is quite the sight, though:

I just read this thread and found it really interesting.

 

Can I suggest another challenge, touch & goes on the 777 similar to the ones on this video:

 

I did my try 2 years ago, here you can have a look: https://youtu.be/qJ-8TH9ecp8?t=33m10s

 

BTW: When I did it, PMDG hadn't release the update that corrected the FBW trim issue.

That was a great read.  I'll give that a shot.

 

Thanks Kyle.

I too only saw this two-year old posting yesterday.  Although I have the PMDG T3-200 (+ the 300), for simplicity, I tried that approach in a good quality freeware T3-200 (took-off from Richmond - RIC).  I tried to duplicate the route and came pretty close:  Made a fairly good hand-flown landing...  Will try it again configured in the PMDG... 

As an airline guy let me tell you this is probably one of the most fun thing we can do. It'll give life to a job that can get very mundane day in and out. Ever super senior pilots love a good visual approach clearance. I'm not flying anything as big as a 777 but it's still fun none the less

 

 

The Mount Vernon Area of Potomac TRACON (serving DCA), and DCA tower are notorious for cramming aircraft into and out of that airport using this method

 

Kyle,

 

What good fun to read the original post...it's been ages since I've seen that one.  It's especially nostalgic for me since I moved from DC 2 months ago.  My flight sim is still in storage, so counting the days to fly in the area again.

 

Cheers