Visual separation on an Instrument approach

[tmdarlan]

My facility is discussing wether or not you can for example: tell an aircraft on an ILS approach to maintain visual seperation from A. The preceeding aircraft on an ils. Or B. Some random vfr/ifr target they are going to over fly.
I feel like you can. Just like any other application of visual. A little weird in A. Because you can just clear for the visual approach. But say they needed the ils for whatever reason.

The argument against is that if they are on an approach they arent able to maneuver to avoid the aircraft. Which seams silly to me. They can maneuver. It may create an unstable approach. But they can turn or climb or whatever if it comes to that.

Can anyone provide any reference that specifically says yes or no you can do this?

 

[slater]

Tower advertising ILS on a nice day. Large on ILS 5 mile final doing 160. Local BE350 on a base also expecting ILS but catching up because they do. Let the local Kaingair pilot fly thier plane and adjust based on visual separation while still running the ILS. This helps you if you have another large behind the kingair on final and running a squeeze play. IJS. Works all the time.

 

[slater]

I'm convinced everyone saying this isn't ok is prior military and "just doesn't like it" but can't reference any rules or explain how it's bad

fwiw I'm a pilot and do it often, usually with adjacent finals when it's hazy but not IFR. Let the planes fly how they want to, not with our arbitrary separation criteria we're so proud of for some reason

It's a treat watching both finals cross the threshold at the same time. 😀

 

[doodii]

I just think it’s bad practice. I dislike messing with a precision approach with specific descent guidelines to safely land an aircraft.

Because we ALL KNOW that if something happens—even if the controller uses correct rules—the pilot(s) are never at fault and the controller(s) is.

 

[Jake Sully]

An IFR at 16000 is not the same as an IFR on final. Like I said if it’s legal fine, I think it’s sketchy and wouldn’t work like that. Cleared ILS, maintain visual separation (bc I’m about to have a deal), contact tower.

1. APPROACH SEPARATION RESPONSIBILITY

1. The radar controller performing the approach control function is responsible for separation of radar arrivals unless visual separation is provided by the tower, or a letter of agreement/facility directive authorizes otherwise. Radar final controllers ensure that established separation is maintained between aircraft under their control and other aircraft established on the same final approach course.

*unless provided by the tower (not the pilot)

 

[rhombus]

1. APPROACH SEPARATION RESPONSIBILITY
2. The radar controller performing the approach control function is responsible for separation of radar arrivals unless visual separation is provided by the tower, or a letter of agreement/facility directive authorizes otherwise. Radar final controllers ensure that established separation is maintained between aircraft under their control and other aircraft established on the same final approach course.

*unless provided by the tower (not the pilot)

We’re not talking about approach controllers here. We’re talking about tower controllers working aircraft that are already established on final and talking to the tower. Maybe that’s where the confusion is

 

[Jake Sully]

We’re not talking about approach controllers here. We’re talking about tower controllers working aircraft that are already established on final and talking to the tower. Maybe that’s where the confusion is

Oh duh. Yeah 100% then tower applied visual all day lol

 

[arHuFf69]

‘maintain visual separation from the proceeding b737 two miles ahead, cleared ILS rwy36’. Yup there ya go, good controlling! ~sarcasm~ you suck.

 

[Jake Sully]

Why would you tell them to follow and clear them for a visual approach? Are pilots not able/allowed to maintain visual separation from an aircraft and fly an ILS approach at the same time?

If they’re maintaining visual sep behind the preceding aircraft then technically it’s a visual approach based off having that traffic in sight not the airport. Instrument approaches have separation standards so changing the approach to a visual by calling preceding traffic in sight is what saves you from having a wake turbulence deal or loss of separation.

If there is some loophole around it and it’s legal fine but I would never work like that. In my opinion if they’re on an ILS, separation is our job- if you want to put separation on the pilot- it’s a visual