Visual approach clearance to an airport without a control tower

Termine

⭐SuperStar
I ♥ pointSixtyFive
Messages
803
I was trained that the following two statements are accurate:
  1. An aircraft must report either the airport, the runway, or a preceeding-aircraft-to-follow in sight before being issued a visual approach clearance.
  2. Aircraft arriving at an airport with an operational control tower are cleared for a visual approach to a specific runway. Aircraft arriving at an airport without an operational control tower are cleared for a visual approach to the airport in general.
But a careful reading of 7–4–3 does not actually support either statement. Both are implied but never spelled out in so many words.

Regarding statement #2, 7–4–3a says that even if an aircraft is being vectored for an instrument approach, a visual approach may be initiated if the pilot reports the airport or runway in sight (operational control tower) or the airport in sight (no operational control tower). There are two possible phraseologies listed:

CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH RUNWAY (number)

and

CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH TO (airport name)

. It certainly seems like the first phraseology should be used at a towered airport while the second should be used at an untowered airport, but this is not made clear and both versions are listed under 7–4–3b, not a.

Regarding statement #1, the most basic criterion for issuing a visual approach clearance is listed at 7–4–3c1: "The aircraft is number one in the approach sequence." That's the only requirement, for them to be number one. It doesn't say anything about the airport being in sight at all! 7–4–3c3 does mention the airport or runway being in sight in the context of there being a sequence, but if there is no sequence c1 applies instead of c3, and c1 doesn't require the airport to be in sight. And 7–4–3a from above isn't relevant if the aircraft was getting vectors for a visual approach from the start.
However there is a note at c2 (the aircraft reports only the preceding aircraft in sight) which specifically says "the pilot need not report the airport/runway in sight," which does imply—but again does not actually say—that they do need to report the airport/runway in sight otherwise.

I'm not claiming that we should be giving visual approach clearances without getting an "in sight" report, because obviously that's dumb. I'm wondering if other people see what I'm saying and if this is something that should be clarified in the .65, or if the statements above are so obvious that I should sit down and go play with my toys over in the corner.
 
A1 and 2 are the basic requirements for a VA, they're the necessity.

C is the method by which you issue the clearance, whether it's the first or following.

Back into the corner with your toys.
 
A1 and 2 are the basic requirements for a VA, they're the necessity.
Those apply IF the aircraft was previously being vectored for an instrument approach and they subsequently report the airport/runway in sight. If the aircraft was being vectored for a visual approach from the beginning, they aren't relevant. Otherwise the clause "even when an aircraft is being vectored for an instrument approach" would be meaningless and redundant. Consider these two sentences:
  1. Controllers may initiate, or pilots may request, a visual approach even when an aircraft is being vectored for an instrument approach and the pilot subsequently reports...
  2. Controllers may initiate, or pilots may request, a visual approach when the pilot reports...
If the intended meaning is sentence #2, why did they write sentence #1? Sentence #2 includes the meaning of sentence #1. If they wanted to add that clause to make it super clear that you can still issue a VA despite having initiated vectors to an instrument approach—but the pilot reporting "in sight" is a necessity no matter what—then the clause should have been set off by commas or parentheses.

I think with stuff like this is always helps to read the AIM too. It fills in a lot of the why of our rules
Hm, a good point. The AIM is much clearer that the pilot must have the airport/runway/preceding traffic in sight in order to be issued the clearance. But we don't control based on the AIM (which is, as people like to say, "not regulatory")—we control based on the .65. And the .65 is very much not clear here, the way I read it.

And again, I'm not claiming "Haha, I'm going to clear someone for a visual before they report in sight, so there!" I'm wondering if this is something that should be changed in the .65 so that it is as unambiguous as the AIM is.
 
The way you're reading it is wrong,

a. Controllers may initiate, or pilots may request, a visual approach even when an aircraft is being vectored for an instrument approach and the pilot subsequently reports:
1. The airport or the runway in sight at airports with operating control towers.
2. The airport in sight at airports without a control tower.

1 and 2 are the requirements for the visual. A simply states you can clear them for VA regardless of prior intentions.
 
Okay, again, I understand what they're trying to say. But I really don't think I'm reading it wrong, I think it's written wrong. If you take out the "even when being vectored for a visual approach" bit the sentence is a grammatical mess because of the word "and" sitting in there. That means you have to keep the "even when being vectored for a visual approach" clause and that means the sentence, as it is written, does not apply to the scenario in which an aircraft is being vectored for a visual approach.

If it is the intention that the pilot has to report in sight (which I agree is most likely the actual intention) I would want it to be rewritten something like this:
a. Controllers may initiate, or pilots may request, a visual approach when the pilot reports:
  1. The airport or the runway in sight at airports with operating control towers.
  2. The airport in sight at airports without a control tower.
NOTE-
If the pilot reports the airport/runway in sight, a visual approach clearance may be issued even if the aircraft was being vectored for an instrument approach.

Still curious about whether you're allowed to issue a VA to a specific runway at an airport without a control tower. Again, the intention seems clear but it isn't backed up in the text.
 
I see what you're getting at, semantics is the most loved part of this job. Especially sloppily written stuff.

I'll have to look in to the specific runway assignments for non-towered airports. Seems like a no-no based off the assumption of liability it carries. Though I have coordinated with pilots before based off the runway they intended then vectored them for and issued base entries for specific runways at non-towered airports. Due to the published pattern entries interrupting a C Airspace departure area though, so I think justification might allow flexibility with it. The gray area of sequence, separate, and expedite is honestly the most interesting part of this job.
 
Those apply IF the aircraft was previously being vectored for an instrument approach and they subsequently report the airport/runway in sight. If the aircraft was being vectored for a visual approach from the beginning, they aren't relevant. Otherwise the clause "even when an aircraft is being vectored for an instrument approach" would be meaningless and redundant. Consider these two sentences:

If the intended meaning is sentence #2, why did they write sentence #1? Sentence #2 includes the meaning of sentence #1. If they wanted to add that clause to make it super clear that you can still issue a VA despite having initiated vectors to an instrument approach—but the pilot reporting "in sight" is a necessity no matter what—then the clause should have been set off by commas or parentheses.


Hm, a good point. The AIM is much clearer that the pilot must have the airport/runway/preceding traffic in sight in order to be issued the clearance. But we don't control based on the AIM (which is, as people like to say, "not regulatory")—we control based on the .65. And the .65 is very much not clear here, the way I read it.

And again, I'm not claiming "Haha, I'm going to clear someone for a visual before they report in sight, so there!" I'm wondering if this is something that should be changed in the .65 so that it is as unambiguous as the AIM is.
You’re right we don’t. But I feel like it gives a fuller picture of everything. Like the controllers they get mad when pilots report leaving altitudes. Having a more full knowledge is always better

A good example is what a pilot will do if they go missed on a visual or after the MAP. The 65 won’t tell you what to expect. But the AIM will
 
You’re right we don’t. But I feel like it gives a fuller picture of everything. Like the controllers they get mad when pilots report leaving altitudes. Having a more full knowledge is always better

A good example is what a pilot will do if they go missed on a visual or after the MAP. The 65 won’t tell you what to expect. But the AIM will
7-4-1 A and B for as to what to expect for a VA go-around.

Also there is no MAP for a VA.
 
Yah but the AIM will tell you what a plane will do after the MAP on a instrument approach. It was just an example

While I agree, there is plenty to be gained from the AIM. There is enough in the .65 to work with.

The published missed associated with the approach unless provided an alternate missed approach 4-8-9. Since when you clear them for the approach you're clearing them for the published missed, hence protecting for the missed approach.
 
While I agree, there is plenty to be gained from the AIM. There is enough in the .65 to work with.

The published missed associated with the approach unless provided an alternate missed approach 4-8-9. Since when you clear them for the approach you're clearing them for the published missed, hence protecting for the missed approach.
I’m saying for when a plane cant land after the MAP or if they are on a circling approach. A lot of non towered airports have goofy approaches where the MAP could be quite a ways from the airport itself. I just use it as an example for its a great resource for controllers who want to see a bigger picture on a lot of topics
 
I always put a +V in the tag, then whisper the ILS clearance and tell the other
final controllers next to me “don’t worry my guys on a visual” as I go barreling in with no altitude separation
 
Well the .65Z CHG 2 clears up one of my questions. At airports with a currently-operational ATCT, you issue an approach clearance to a specific runway. At non-towered airports, you issue an approach clearance to the airport only. So it is written, and so it shall be done.

I still contend that the grammatical mess which is 7–4–3a technically does not require the pilot to report the field in sight, provided they are #1 and provided that they were being vectored for a visual approach in the first place. Again, I don't think that's the intended meaning but I do think that's what the text says.
 
Well the .65Z CHG 2 clears up one of my questions. At airports with a currently-operational ATCT, you issue an approach clearance to a specific runway. At non-towered airports, you issue an approach clearance to the airport only. So it is written, and so it shall be done.

I still contend that the grammatical mess which is 7–4–3a technically does not require the pilot to report the field in sight, provided they are #1 and provided that they were being vectored for a visual approach in the first place. Again, I don't think that's the intended meaning but I do think that's what the text says.
7−4−3. CLEARANCE FOR VISUAL APPROACH ARTCCs and approach controls may clear aircraft for visual approaches using the following procedures:

NOTE− Towers may exercise this authority when authorized by a LOA with the facility that provides the IFR service, or by a facility directive at collocated facilities.

a. Controllers may initiate, or pilots may request, a visual approach even when an aircraft is being vectored for an instrument approach and the pilot subsequently reports:
1. The airport or the runway in sight at airports with operating control towers.
2. The airport in sight at airports without a control tower





I do like rules arguments. Above is 7-4-3a. Which part is the grammatical mess that technically does not require the pilot to report the field in sight? Is it because of the phrase "even when"? Please expound.
 
Well the .65Z CHG 2 clears up one of my questions. At airports with a currently-operational ATCT, you issue an approach clearance to a specific runway. At non-towered airports, you issue an approach clearance to the airport only. So it is written, and so it shall be done.

I still contend that the grammatical mess which is 7–4–3a technically does not require the pilot to report the field in sight, provided they are #1 and provided that they were being vectored for a visual approach in the first place. Again, I don't think that's the intended meaning but I do think that's what the text says.
clear the a/c for the visual on initial contact at 15,000 and see what happens. time to put your money where your mouth is
 
Back
Top Bottom