Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

We need to separate something here. The issue isn't a visual approach as such, and I'll bet that what we consider a visual approach wasn't actually what ATC were clearing people to do. The problem is asking people to maintain separation visually at night, over a large city. There is no way to really tell if the aircraft you're looking at is the one you're supposed to be spacing on. They disappear against the lights of the city. I wonder how the controller would react if you told him you'd lost contact with the other aircraft. Basically it's a system that dumps separation onto the aircraft, in a situation in which they have quite limited ability to safely monitor it.

The Captain can do whatever he needs to do to ensure the safety of the aircraft. To be honest, diverting away from such poor ATC probably improves things.

This is a quote from the FAA rules for a visual approach:
"Proceed as otherwise instructed by ATC. The pilot is expected to comply with assigned instructions, and responsible to maintain terrain and obstruction avoidance until reaching an ATC assigned altitude. ATC is responsible to provide instructions to the pilot to facilitate a climb to the minimum altitude for instrument operations. ATC must provide approved separation or visual separation from other IFR aircraft."
Basically they were trying to forcibly offload the last part!

 

[justinbrett]

But if a visual is requested, I assume the same "wait till we can fit you in" would come from ATC?

"Runway in sight" - does that apply from any angle of approach to the airport, or an "on approach" point of view?

No, fitting in a VSA with ILS approaches is easy. But also I can't think of a good reason why the reverse LH situation would occur (an IFR aircraft insisting on a visual approach when they are given an ILS approach, unless there is some kind of failure).

Runway in sight means what is says on the tin (they can currently see the runway).

We need to separate something here. The issue isn't a visual approach as such, and I'll bet that what we consider a visual approach wasn't actually what ATC were clearing people to do. The problem is asking people to maintain separation visually at night, over a large city. There is no way to really tell if the aircraft you're looking at is the one you're supposed to be spacing on. They disappear against the lights of the city. I wonder how the controller would react if you told him you'd lost contact with the other aircraft. Basically it's a system that dumps separation onto the aircraft, in a situation in which they have quite limited ability to safely monitor it.

The Captain can do whatever he needs to do to ensure the safety of the aircraft. To be honest, diverting away from such poor ATC probably improves things.

This is a quote from the FAA rules for a visual approach:
"Proceed as otherwise instructed by ATC. The pilot is expected to comply with assigned instructions, and responsible to maintain terrain and obstruction avoidance until reaching an ATC assigned altitude. ATC is responsible to provide instructions to the pilot to facilitate a climb to the minimum altitude for instrument operations. ATC must provide approved separation or visual separation from other IFR aircraft."
Basically they were trying to forcibly offload the last part!

Agreed, but regardless of ATC's motivation, the failure of them to accommodate the ILS approach when it's quite a normal request for a foreign aircraft at night; that's the issue. The first controller was caught off guard but at least sounded like he would try to fit him in. The second controller was downright atrocious. I'm fairly confident if you did that in Australia you'd probably lose your job and/or have the Transport minister phoning your boss.

With such a tight sequence and no room for contingencies, you really don't want to go around in SFO with that guy on shift.

I'm tipping this won't happen again.

 

[Quickstatus]

The issue here is not so much the visual approach, but rather the issue of visual separation.

How is visual separation possible for a pilot when it's an ILS approach?. Looking outside while looking inside at the same time during a period of high demand on cognitive bandwidth?

Sounds like the FAA didn't like it

With such a tight sequence and no room for contingencies,

So because they had a lot of aircraft coming in all at the same time they decided to use Visual approach and by association visual separation which allows a higher approach tempo and dump all the responsibility on the pilots rather than using ILS which is safer for everyone concerned but would likely increase ATC workload - more holding in the air etc?

As a passenger, I would like a functional ILS to be available to the pilot. Even in perfect daytime weather visual approaches have got airplanes into strife

Where else does this happen in the US?

 

[justinbrett]

So because they had a lot of aircraft coming in all at the same time they decided to use Visual approach and by association visual separation which allows a higher approach tempo and dump all the responsibility on the pilots rather than using ILS which is safer for everyone concerned but would likely increase ATC workload - more holding in the air etc?

As a passenger, I would like a functional ILS to be available to the pilot. Even in perfect daytime weather visual approaches have got airplanes into strife

Where else does this happen in the US?

To be fair it sounds like it wasn’t so much about controller workload, but that (due to FAA) an ILS prevents a simultaneous approach to the parallel runway, and also increased spacing, so reduces the landing slots by at least half. We see what that does to SYD all the time.

I don’t criticise them for making visual approaches the default approach, but denying an ILS to aircraft that need it is just wrong.

Also you can’t legally be on an ILS and be visually separating. It’s what we used to call the “budget ILS”, where you are legally on a visual approach, but just so happen to follow the GP perfectly (the airline gets billed extra for ILS approaches). Jetstar did it frequently (to be clear it was VMC and there was no requirement for them to be on an ILS, nor did they request one).

 

[Quickstatus]

but denying an ILS to aircraft that need it is just wrong.

The problem sounds like it was too hard to accomodate an ILS into a line of visuals. And likely also inviting others to request an ILS?

 

[jb747]

How is visual separation possible for a pilot when it's an ILS approach?.

I can pretty much guarantee for you, that no matter what ATC have cleared you for, if there's an ILS there it will be tuned and the system allowed to capture it. It's utterly stupid not to use guidance that is there, irrespective of any clearance. If they were to turn the ILS off then I'd simply use a overlay (GPS) approach. If it's at all possible, the aircraft systems would be used to the maximum.

Looking outside while looking inside at the same time during a period of high demand on cognitive bandwidth?

Well, it's pretty easy if you're actually on the ILS, as you can keep the autopilot engaged. That means more opportunity to look out. But, none of us are any good at actually estimating range to another aircraft, so maintaining a separation standard is more about luck than management. Of course this all falls apart at night, and that's were the problem lies.

Thinking about it, if you were to actually fly the visual approach, without any use of the aircraft systems/aids, then you'd have to have the flight director turned off, and the autopilot disengaged. All of your attention would be cycling between "line up, glide path, speed, power", and you would have pretty much zero ability to go looking around for other aircraft. The 'budget ILS' is a much, much, safer option.

So because they had a lot of aircraft coming in all at the same time they decided to use Visual approach and by association visual separation which allows a higher approach tempo and dump all the responsibility on the pilots rather than using ILS which is safer for everyone concerned but would likely increase ATC workload - more holding in the air etc?.

No even holding. Just judging the approach gap.

As a passenger, I would like a functional ILS to be available to the pilot. Even in perfect daytime weather visual approaches have got airplanes into strife.

You need to separate having an ILS available (and tuned) from being on an ILS approach. If Sydney cleared me to do a visual approach on (say) 16R, I would still have the ILS tuned/captured. It changes the separation standard, but it does not preclude using an available aid.

Where else does this happen in the US?

Probably most places.

 

[Quickstatus]

So how do pilots maintain visual separation at night?. Commercial vs General?

 

[jb747]

So how do pilots maintain visual separation at night?. Commercial vs General?

AV will have had more experience of this than me. I don't recall ever being asked to provide visual separation at night by any ATC unit, and I've only rarely operated into non controlled airfields, and virtually never at night.

 

[AviatorInsight]

So how do pilots maintain visual separation at night?. Commercial vs General?

TCAS is a wonderful tool.

When I'm required to "maintain visual separation", I am now responsible for flying a safe distance (don't hit the other guy!) and for maintaining my own wake turbulence separation.

You can try to eyeball it, but at night it is much harder to tell if you're closing in on the aircraft in front. This is why TCAS is so useful. I can usually tell if the aircraft in front has slowed up well before my eyes can determine what is going on even though I'm trying to use my own judgement on how close I'm getting visually.

Of course, to make this all easier, we will always tune up the GLS or ILS frequency and couple it to the autopilot. This also keeps us within the requirements needed to fly a visual approach (especially at night).

 

[jb747]

TCAS is a wonderful tool.

Yes, I'm sure everyone does it (and so would I)....but now we're using a piece of equipment for other than its designed purpose, and not actually maintaining visual separation. As I see it, it's a bit of the frog in boiling water scenario. And it just goes to prove the impossibility of actually doing what US ATC are asking for.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Yes, I'm sure everyone does it (and so would I)....but now we're using a piece of equipment for other than its designed purpose, and not actually maintaining visual separation. As I see it, it's a bit of the frog in boiling water scenario. And it just goes to prove the impossibility of actually doing what ATC are asking for.

The requirements of the clearance must still be met all while we don't hit the other aircraft. For example, if we are inside ATC's wake turbulence separation, we'll get a "caution wake turbulence" advisory from them, but not necessarily reduce speed to gain that distance back.

I agree, to use TCAS as a primary means of separation is foolish. It is used merely as a backup, an accessory to the eye, it can provide a quick check. If you visually lose sight of the other aircraft, we shouldn't rely on TCAS to say "oh I've got them on TCAS, she'll be right".

To be honest, we're not asked to maintain visual separation with other aircraft a lot, which is a good thing.

 

[jb747]

SpaceX get a bit closer with flight #2. I'll bet they get the Starship to work before Boeing get their 'liner working properly.

 

[RSD]

I can pretty much guarantee for you, that no matter what ATC have cleared you for, if there's an ILS there it will be tuned and the system allowed to capture it. It's utterly stupid not to use guidance that is there, irrespective of any clearance. If they were to turn the ILS off then I'd simply use a overlay (GPS) approach. If it's at all possible, the aircraft systems would be used to the maximum.

Well, it's pretty easy if you're actually on the ILS, as you can keep the autopilot engaged. That means more opportunity to look out. But, none of us are any good at actually estimating range to another aircraft, so maintaining a separation standard is more about luck than management. Of course this all falls apart at night, and that's were the problem lies.

Thinking about it, if you were to actually fly the visual approach, without any use of the aircraft systems/aids, then you'd have to have the flight director turned off, and the autopilot disengaged. All of your attention would be cycling between "line up, glide path, speed, power", and you would have pretty much zero ability to go looking around for other aircraft. The 'budget ILS' is a much, much, safer option.

No even holding. Just judging the approach gap.

You need to separate having an ILS available (and tuned) from being on an ILS approach. If Sydney cleared me to do a visual approach on (say) 16R, I would still have the ILS tuned/captured. It changes the separation standard, but it does not preclude using an available aid.

Probably most places.

I did some GA flying in the U.S. when I lived there - there were times when I was convinced that ATC was trying to kill me - you really had to have an extra layer of guard up when flying over there. They really struggled with things like the approach speed differential between Boeing products and Cessna products - had a few scary moments due to that problem.

 

[jb747]

I did some GA flying in the U.S. when I lived there - there were times when I was convinced that ATC was trying to kill me - you really had to have an extra layer of guard up when flying over there. They really struggled with things like the approach speed differential between Boeing products and Cessna products - had a few scary moments due to that problem.

That would be your fault, for failing to fly the approach at 150 kias. And I’m sure some would have been quite willing to tell you so, over the air.

On a different note, sad news about the mid air between the S211s over Port Phillip.

 

[RSD]

That would be your fault, for failing to fly the approach at 150 kias. And I’m sure some would have been quite willing to tell you so, over the air.

On a different note, sad news about the mid air between the S211s over Port Phillip.

Oh they were quite willing to tell me that - one was helpful enough to tell me that if I didn't speed up then I would end up being ingested by one of his engines!

 

[Quickstatus]

I didn't speed up

Reminds me of this
Did they make you go around?

 

[RSD]

Reminds me of this
Did they make you go around?

I became extremely experienced at go-arounds! I tried to plan my flights to avoid the busiest times of the day at airports that had a lot of commercial traffic, but even then it seemed like ATC just couldn't make it work.

 

[jb747]

I became extremely experienced at go-arounds! I tried to plan my flights to avoid the busiest times of the day at airports that had a lot of commercial traffic, but even then it seemed like ATC just couldn't make it work.

Reminds me of the time I took an aircraft over to Avalon. There were three light aircraft in circuit and one was trying to keep them all organised. No active tower in those days. When we called inbound he thought it would be good to add us to his 'control', but it fell apart when he asked us our type, obviously expecting some form of light aircraft. When we came back with 747-400 he went a bit quiet, so we just suggested that they all hang out on the Geelong side of the runway for a few minutes, which would give us time to join downwind and land. They all hopped out of the way, and it worked quite cleanly.

 

[RSD]

Reminds me of the time I took an aircraft over to Avalon. There were three light aircraft in circuit and one was trying to keep them all organised. No active tower in those days. When we called inbound he thought it would be good to add us to his 'control', but it fell apart when he asked us our type, obviously expecting some form of light aircraft. When we came back with 747-400 he went a bit quiet, so we just suggested that they all hang out on the Geelong side of the runway for a few minutes, which would give us time to join downwind and land. They all hopped out of the way, and it worked quite cleanly.

I pretty much took the view that I would simply follow ATC's instructions, and keep a head on a swivel at all times in case they weren't on the ball, and I just accepted that go-arounds were part of life when trying to land in these situations - sometimes ATC would call them when they realised that their plan wasn't going to end well, sometimes I would make the call myself if I judged that following aircraft were getting too close and their type meant that they couldn't slow down - better a few minutes of inconvenience than the other result. Some controllers learnt to leave a little more space behind me after the first go-around - some didn't, some airports were notorious for the poor way that they treated GA aircraft.

I did find that things were a little easier when I had someone in the righthand seat who could note down the instructions from ATC and act as a second pair of eyes.

I did once fly into Oshkosh Airventure show - that was an interesting experience!

JB - I found the attitude in Texas to be worse than either NY or LA.

 

[BCons]

New Q about go-arounds:

We did a go-around in an SQ A380 recently in SIN. About 100' off the deck (well, that high from my R suite, a lot less back at the main gear) when full power applied is applied and up we go.

Pilot comes on to say 'bird strike' - I didnt catch whether it was 'risk of' or 'actual', so that might make a diff.

But if you are flared out and seconds from touching down, wouldnt it be less risky to go ahead with the landing if already struck, than to power on apparently towards birds ahead ?