Visual Approach with Restriction

OHPilot213

OHPilot213

Well-Known Member
Ok, this has really been bothering me for a while. Always when I go into Cleveland they issue a visual approach to 24R with a restriction, usually 6.5 DME at or above 3000 or 10 DME at or above 4000, also naturally there is usually a speed restriction too, but the one that really got me was going into Cleveland the other day I called a 757 in sight with hopes of getting the visual approach clearance. The approach controller comes back with maintain visual separation with the 757, cleared for the ILS runway 24R approach. I guess I just always thought an ILS wouldn't come with a visual separation restriction. So, my question is if you clear an aircraft for a visual what restrictions can controllers place?
 
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but it seems to me that I get visual approaches with the restriction to maintain visual separation from another aircraft for the parallel runway all the time. I'm not a controller though, so that really doesn't answer your question.
 
There was no confusion, I called him out on it and he repeated it again. And yes in a visual approach it is given that you will maintain visual with another aircraft, but speed and altitude restrictions was what I was really asking about.
 
We get that all the time here in Honolulu. "Maintain 1,500, 190 knots until 5 DME contact tower 118.1".
 
OHPilot213 said:
There was no confusion, I called him out on it and he repeated it again. And yes in a visual approach it is given that you will maintain visual with another aircraft, but speed and altitude restrictions was what I was really asking about.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you're flying, you have to be 4 or 5 miles behind a 757 until the 757 touches down. Not kind of - a solid 4/5. The only way that restriction can be lifted is if you, the pilot in trail, have the 757 in sight and maintain visual. I'm guessing you we're given the visual because that 4/5 was not going to hold, or there was suspicion it wouldn't hold, or it was one of those days (or one of those aircrews) where you look up and a wake maker has a 90kt ground speed inside the marker, etc etc - it could be a number of reasons...

In regards to the ILS, while you were maintaining visual - it's something I do quite a bit. We have a final that aircraft MUST cross at the published ILS altitudes to protect for departures off an adjacent airport.

"crossing XXX, cleared ILS RWY XXX approach" is a lot more efficient than:

"XXX airport is (o'clock and distance), report it in sight"
*wait*
"cross XXX at or above XXX, cleared visual approach RWY XXX"

Let me just throw an edit on here:

This is a multiple runway airport, and it's just ONE runway in a specific configuration that requires an altitude restriction. It is so rote for us to clear for visuals without restrictions, it only takes omission of the restriction on this particular runway ONCE before you just clear for the ILS instead. But, getting the visual with a wake maker is a bonus regardless :)
 
Pay2 said:
Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but it seems to me that I get visual approaches with the restriction to maintain visual separation from another aircraft for the parallel runway all the time. I'm not a controller though, so that really doesn't answer your question.
Click to expand...

Has to do with the distance between the parallels - this is another common requirement.
 
OHPilot213 said:
The approach controller comes back with maintain visual separation with the 757, cleared for the ILS runway 24R approach. I guess I just always thought an ILS wouldn't come with a visual separation restriction. So, my question is if you clear an aircraft for a visual what restrictions can controllers place?
Click to expand...

You're cleared for an instrument approach in VMC, so not hitting another aircraft or the ground or anything attached to it, is still your responsibility. Same with avoiding another aircraft's wake, though I would think you would've received a "caution wake turbulence" advisory from ATC on that.
 
OHPilot213 said:
There was no confusion, I called him out on it and he repeated it again. And yes in a visual approach it is given that you will maintain visual with another aircraft, but speed and altitude restrictions was what I was really asking about.
Click to expand...

About the speed:

If you're cleared for a straight visual, I can assign an altitude and speed to protect for another aircraft and control the compression (both in front and behind you)on the final.

If you're cleared for a visual by way of following another aircraft - you are responsible for your spacing. You are required to be told if your speed is greater. There is no telling what a pilot deems appropriate separation, so the best I can do is throw out an, "the traffic you're following is one eighty to the marker, if you can match that for traffic behind..."

But it's pretty rare for me, personally, to clear for a visual by way of follow unless there is absolutely nothing that can catch. I've seen wAAy too many...not anticipated...things happen as a result :)
 
TripSix said:
But it's pretty rare for me, personally, to clear for a visual by way of follow unless there is absolutely nothing that can catch. I've seen wAAy too many...not anticipated...things happen as a result :)
Click to expand...
"Follow American, cleared visual approach same runway."

"Gear down condition levers max, first notch of flaps..."
 
I agree with TripleSix's opinion. You were still being cleared onto the ILS approach, but visual separation was used to get out of providing mileage based separation between you and the 757 on final. This let them run you closer, presumably to keep from having to break you off the approach or manhandle your speed to make it work, when there was always going to be enough room at the runway.

On a good day, with traffic in sight, it's a good backup. Because of the wake turbulence situation of following a 757, a cautionary advisory should have also been given. If you had a speed overtake, that should have been mentioned also.
 
I'm not follo
TripSix said:
Depending on what you're flying, you have to be 4 or 5 miles behind a 757 until the 757 touches down. Not kind of - a solid 4/5. The only way that restriction can be lifted is if you, the pilot in trail, have the 757 in sight and maintain visual. I'm guessing you we're given the visual because that 4/5 was not going to hold, or there was suspicion it wouldn't hold, or it was one of those days (or one of those aircrews) where you look up and a wake maker has a 90kt ground speed inside the marker, etc etc - it could be a number of reasons...

In regards to the ILS, while you were maintaining visual - it's something I do quite a bit. We have a final that aircraft MUST cross at the published ILS altitudes to protect for departures off an adjacent airport.

"crossing XXX, cleared ILS RWY XXX approach" is a lot more efficient than:

"XXX airport is (o'clock and distance), report it in sight"
*wait*
"cross XXX at or above XXX, cleared visual approach RWY XXX"
Let me just throw an edit on here:

This is a multiple runway airport, and it's just ONE runway in a specific configuration that requires an altitude restriction. It is so rote for us to clear for visuals without restrictions, it only takes omission of the restriction on this particular runway ONCE before you just clear for the ILS instead. But, getting the visual with a wake maker is a bonus regardless :)
Click to expand...

I'm not following the logic on the ILS/visual thing here. I'm cleared for an instrument approach, and thus may fly through the cloud. However the "maintain visual separation" instruction implies that I am not to fly through the cloud.

I'm having a hard time understanding that clearance. If you need me to stay on the ILS as best I can while keeping visual separation, wouldn't it be better to just say so? I think that "cleared ILS, maintain visual separation" is contradictory.
 
How would you phrase it? And bear in mind our phraseology is supposed to be a little cleaner than "Cleared ILS approach, stay on it as best you can while keeping visual separation with that traffic." I think our QA would have some notes to share with us about saying something like that.

When I've heard it applied, the aircraft is usually already on the approach and just hasn't yet been switched to tower:

"Cleared ILS approach"
*pilot reads it back*
"Traffic 12 o clock, 6 miles, same direction, Boeing 757, 2000 report it in sight"
*pilot reports traffic*
"Maintain visual separation, caution wake turbulence."

Is that what you were thinking or something else?
 
Chief Captain said:
I'm not following the logic on the ILS/visual thing here. I'm cleared for an instrument approach, and thus may fly through the cloud. However the "maintain visual separation" instruction implies that I am not to fly through the cloud.

I'm having a hard time understanding that clearance. If you need me to stay on the ILS as best I can while keeping visual separation, wouldn't it be better to just say so? I think that "cleared ILS, maintain visual separation" is contradictory.
Click to expand...

Like Trip said, a clearance to follow the ILS from a controller's point of view may have nothing to do with cloudiness; it may be for altitude/route restrictions. I.E. we can't authorize a visual approach, but we can get you on the ILS sooner if you can maintain visual separation from the #1 traffic.

If you are unable to maintain visual separation from traffic because of impending clouds, you should say so.
 
In addition to what Bernoulli fan said, there are instances where the ILS is issued due to visibility restrictions. Fishing for a visual approach on six miles vis is a great way to increase your workload three fold. Now, if I have two closely spaced parallels both runways are considered one. Following a 757, you need 4 or 5 miles in trail. If the reason for the ILS issuance is 6 miles vis, if I point your nose at seat 28E 3,000 feet away, you'll see it. If you see it, I can clear you on an ILS to maintain visual and save you and myself the extra 6/7 miles I'm going to need to keep from busting wake sep. 7 miles is close to two additional slots in the final. Every little bit helps.
 
FM_Weasel said:
How would you phrase it? And bear in mind our phraseology is supposed to be a little cleaner than "Cleared ILS approach, stay on it as best you can while keeping visual separation with that traffic." I think our QA would have some notes to share with us about saying something like that.

When I've heard it applied, the aircraft is usually already on the approach and just hasn't yet been switched to tower:

"Cleared ILS approach"
*pilot reads it back*
"Traffic 12 o clock, 6 miles, same direction, Boeing 757, 2000 report it in sight"
*pilot reports traffic*
"Maintain visual separation, caution wake turbulence."

Is that what you were thinking or something else?
Click to expand...

I suppose so. Maybe "reference the ILS, cleared for the visual". Could that be added to the 6110? :)

I'm sure I've done it many times the way you gave in that example, but I've never had it all at once before. Mind you, this discussion is a bit academic, but interesting nevertheless.

Thanks for your input as well genot and bernoulli
 
TripSix said:
About the speed:


If you're cleared for a visual by way of following another aircraft - you are responsible for your spacing. You are required to be told if your speed is greater. There is no telling what a pilot deems appropriate separation, so the best I can do is throw out an, "the traffic you're following is one eighty to the marker, if you can match that for traffic behind..."

But it's pretty rare for me, personally, to clear for a visual by way of follow unless there is absolutely nothing that can catch. I've seen wAAy too many...not anticipated...things happen as a result :)
Click to expand...

If you are told to follow someone here, whether wake turbulence or not, you are assigned a speed. If you disregard that speed, you will get an extra 50 flying miles to figure it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top