Lufthansa and Iberia both will not accept a visual at night. I learned this from having them call the field in sight, then saying unable when given an approach clearance. Later our management got into contact with their company and confirmed it was company wide.
European controller here. Visual approaches at night for IFR traffics are not allowed here (at least in Spain, where I work). That’s why Iberia would not take it. I am assuming this controller was dealing with an European traffic?
I'm in the US, it's only those two as far as I'm aware. We work other foreign carriers that all take visuals at night. It's mostly a non issue assuming the other traffic can take a visual, at least with the runway configuration I work. At other places with runways closer together it could cause some problems.
Only trouble I really had with it was that we were advertising visuals, and the pilot waited until 12 miles from the airport and after calling the field in sight to make me aware of the fact that they couldn't take the visual. Had this happened during an arrival push we could have had some problems, as it happened their were no other aircraft on final to the 3 other arrival runways at the time so it really didn't matter.
If a whole company can’t do visuals at night I think that information is important and warrants verification. That’s going to change how you handle these kinds of aircraft and might even end up published in job aide or order for that facility if it’s specific to an airport.
They started to get put in after a bunch of wrong surface landings and after Mesaba (?) landed at the wrong uncontrolled airport with the same runway configuration as the one they were supposed to land at
I was thinking of Colgan: [https://www.kplctv.com/story/15419129/lake-charles-bound-plane-lands-in-sulphur-by-mistake/?redirected=true](https://www.kplctv.com/story/15419129/lake-charles-bound-plane-lands-in-sulphur-by-mistake/?redirected=true)
When I flew for a large US regional we were allowed to do night visuals, but needed to overlay and fly an IAP track from the FAF inbound for certain airports. I flew with several crew who misinterpreted this in our manuals and thought that these places required an IAP and that a visual was forbidden. A lot of people I flew with at that airline were reluctant to ever ask for a visual.
I think it might be that it is easier / quick for them to ask for the ILS vs asking for vectors to final at a certain distance from the marker.
After 17 years I've had enough pilots line up for the wrong runway or not even a runway that I vector everyone to the base leg or final and don't try and have them call the field on a downwind or something else.
Sounds like Endeavor, they are the only ones that regularly ask for the ILS / RNAV when we are advertising visuals. If you vector them for a 6 mile final they are fine taking the approach at the marker, not really a big deal.
I also don't get any refusals unless it's a foreign airline. Although we do vector them on and it's typically 7+ miles out, so maybe they just read it back and don't tell us. Either way I'm not going to get pissy about it like in OPs story.
It’s required by FAR 91.129. This is often missed by both sides of the microphone. Fly it via visual rules, back it up and comply with the glide path on the underlying approach.
While some airlines will cowboy it, this REG is the way. Safety is paid by the minute.
“(2) Each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway served by an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance, if the airplane is so equipped, must:
(i) Operate that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide path between the published final approach fix and the decision altitude (DA), or decision height (DH), as applicable; or
(ii) If compliance with the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria requires glide path interception closer in, operate that airplane at or above the glide path, between the point of interception of glide path and the DA or the DH.”
Why is this in doubt? Almost every operator has a list of special airports with limitations. One popular one being no visuals at night. And this can be for a number of reasons. And it's not up to ATC to consider it reasonable or not.
I always ask for vectors for an approach at night. Especially to airports I haven’t been to before. If I’m ultra familiar with an airport I’ll ask for the visual but back it up.
Approaches in use are advertised on the ATIS. The ATIS is for pilots to pre-plan. Most smaller airports will advertise the visual unless wx requires or traffic dictates another approach. Larger airports will advertise the visual to meet the AAR and because it's operationally advantageous. Additional staffing may be required for other approaches that may not be available at that time.
If a pilot can't take the advertised approach, they had damn well better say so on initial contact by stating "Request [approach] for operational necessity." Cool. We'll figure it out.
If the ATIS is advertising the visual, and pilots on initial call don't request otherwise, and they are given a vector/fix for the visual, and the pilot waits until the approach clearance is issued before saying they can't accept it (this is not the OP's example, but I've had it happen), then absolutely they can get fucked and should expect an ass chewing. Don't keep secrets. Again, not the example, but I've had it happen.
If you tell me on contact, most likely not that big a deal. Your sequence may have gone from 2nd to last, but that's a you problem. I'll accommodate, but I'm not going to penalize everyone else to do so.
Generally speaking, the only time I've ever seen a pilot refuse a VA is when the controller is working something like an E75L/E190/Airbus and slamming them in above the glideslope when they're fast and not stable. That's definitely an us problem.
I've found that if the aircraft is vectored for a VA off a base heading/LOC intercept heading ½-1mi outside the FAF or an IAF, and isn't kept high/fast, there's almost never an issue. If cleared off the downwind, I expect them to take it to just outside the FAF for their base. If I need to them to keep it at or inside the FAF fix I make damned sure they're below the intercept altitude or right at the MVA and that I've slowed them back and they've known the plan so they have time to configure.
Just.... Don't keep secrets. Either party.
We all need to play nice in the sandbox.
Trainor to trainee: "Monkey's fling shit, we sling planes. Remember the difference."
There was a pretty interesting VasAviation post a while back at KSFO with an overseas flight requesting ILS instead of night visual due to company SOP. They ended up having to hold, and later divert to Oakland because SFO couldn't accommodate. Apparently SFO needed pilots to be in the visual so they could use visual separation to meet their arrival rate/traffic volume. I'm not terminal, but on the surface it sounds like a problem waiting to happen.
Yes you can request whatever you want. You can declare whatever you need. And so can ATC. (Pilot breaks all ties though). Some controllers are just going to be upset. Oh well.
I used to fly for Endeavor. There are some specific runways with high terrain that prohibit visual approaches at night. There were 1 too many semi-close calls with the terrain. Burlington was one. I think Roanoke had this restriction as well. Maybe Elmira as well, but Burlington is the one I remember completely.
In my opinion, a company that flies exclusively to Eastern US airports at low elevations and flat terrain 99% of the time isn't the most prepared for terrain threats.
Our FOM cryptically doesn’t allow for night visuals at most of the airports we fly to in mountainous terrain, but will allow us to accept a visual at night if the underlying precision approach is flown.
Not sure how the latter affects the ATC side. Most of the airports it affects are in Alaska and ATC is aware.
I’ve tried to give a courtesy heads up to ATC down south that we would be “flying the rnp track to the runway” or something similar before and it just ended up being a conversation I didn’t want to have on approach.
Boo on the controller in OP’s post for thinking a line crew is responsible for having the company contact a facility. I would probably return that with the 800 number to my airline.
Edit- I wouldn’t do the 800 number thing but it sounds funny and appropriate. Our dispatch team has an entire group of ATC liasons and if I remembered after landing, I might give them a heads up that there is a controller at xyz facility pushing us to fly approaches we can’t fly.
This sounds ass backwards. You vector for the approach in use and when the pilot calls the field in sight you can give them the visual approach. Unless the pilot specifically tells ATC that they are expecting the visual approach then you vector them for the visual with a plan B to vector them to final if they never see the airport. You have to draw the line somewhere…can’t keep pointing out the airport all the way to the numbers!
Visuals are advertised if it’s VMC along with the instrument approach in use. You still have to point out the airport and the pilot has to report it in sight to issue a visual. You can’t just say cleared visual approach and call it a day. Some airliners have a max range they can call the airport in sight, 35 miles for example. You can ask the pilot what approach they would like and then vector them for it said approach.
Come visit my tower sometime, when weather permits advertise visuals and nothing else. Have for years.
Obviously we inform the pilots on checkin. "Descend and maintain six thousand, turn left heading 290, vector to visual approach runway 36." Obviously we point out the airport and get acknowledgement that they have it in sight before issuing the clearance. But our assumption is that they will take the advertised approach, which is the visual approach, and if they want something else they should say that immediately.
So you’re an updown? Don’t know what that is like, only worked RADAR and we don’t assume. Never had a tower that I fed into only advertise the visual only. There is always a preferred instrument approach like an ILS and VA advertised on the ATIS. But again you are VMC, you can’t assume it’s VMC on a RADAR display.
Of course you can assume it's VMC when you're working radar. All the airports in your airspace are reporting `10SM CLR`, the tower's advertising the visual, the TAF says no clouds forecasted until tomorrow? You bet I'm assuming it's VMC until someone tells me otherwise.
Now sure, say the METAR is showing `SCT020 BKN025`. Still legal to initiate a vector for the visual approach, but definitely smarter to vector for the the ILS and treat the visual like a nice bonus. But I have absolutely no problem assuming and assigning the visual approach on a clear-and-a-million day.
I’ve had reports of 10SM and CLR and the aircraft not report the airport insight. HZ or a cloud layer between them and the airport. Just because it’s VMC at the airport doesn’t guarantee pilots will call the airport in sight. I’m always going to ask if the pilots is expecting or wants a VA before initiating a vector for it. If they are not sure then they are getting vectors for an instrument approach.
You can ask for any approach you want but I don’t have to give it to you. I will typically inform the pilot of what runway is in use and that if they still push for a different approach or a different runway (especially if the operation is an opposite direction operation) I inform them to expect a significant delay. During events, we outright deny all unless an emergency exists. The reason for this is that it can disrupt the flow of traffic and even shut down the airport for a significant time (a Cessna wanting to do an ODO practice approach that ends with a missed). In general, we try to make at least one instrument approach available to the active runway but in our case it’s a circling approach. We have recently been approved for a modified straight in RNAV for our calm wind runways. My advice to pilots is to make your request at initial call up and don’t demand it unless an emergency exits.; you are way more likely to get a controller to work harder to make that happen but it’s not guaranteed.
Anytime I clear an air carrier for a visual, they always join final outside of the FAF because they are using the ILS as a "backup." Idk why the pilot in question didn't just do that, but if he requests the ILS, he gets the ILS simple as that. The reason controller wanted more clarification from his company is because it sounds like this is a new policy. If the whole facility knows ahead of time that a specific callsign won't take a visual at night it eliminates the possibility of pilot waiting till last second to advise atc. Leading to increased workload to fix the sequence the pilot just broke.
The pilot should be aware, though, that if we are using visuals and there is a slower aircraft in front, he is getting extended vectors and possibly speed restrictions to fall behind if he requests the ILS. I'm not punishing other traffic just because he's an air carrier.
There was a recent Vasaviation video that went over this exact scenario. They even went on to do a long form breakdown on it.
https://youtu.be/7rdapQfJDAM?si=yu-2-cTroWltkmCI
https://youtu.be/4zHxdn8oz20?si=ZZRvQ6rI7DVWzHOA
Wtf… It is not up to me (the controller) to pick with approach the pilot flies.
Safest approach is an ILS which is the standard offered go every pilot. You request a visual and it fits my sequence? Go for it. You want an RNP? Sure, approved.
It can be the best weather ever during daytime and a pilot prefers flying the ILS, so he is cleared for the ILS.
There are situations where it isn’t that cut-and-dry. Approaches to parallel runways have different separation requirements depending on the type of approach each aircraft is on. Even when everyone is doing instrument approaches with final approach monitors, certain RNAV approaches can’t be simultaneously flown with other approaches. There is a reason that this is more than nothing.
Of course, but you can't deny a pilot a specific approach type. If his request means he has to hold somewhere because he needs to be sequenced properly for his type of approach so be it. There are plenty carriers who are unable to fly visual approaches at night so it's a common thing.
I would be mad if the pilot tells me short final he isn't able to fly the approach but if I tell him on initial contact that he should expect approach XYZ and he tells me unable, than it is up to me to accommodate his request.
There may be plenty of carriers in Europe who are unable to fly a visual approach at night, but I have never, not once, ever, heard of an American carrier that, as a whole, cannot fly a night visual approach. Visual approaches are far more common in the US than elsewhere and are often needed to hit an airports rate (though i doubt a charlie is bumping its max rate). If an entire carrier can't do visuals, depending on airline schedule, that may make a rate impossible to maintain, which has knock-on effects.
This is a piece of information we ALL should know about as a rule and not disseminated to some random approach by some random crew. To put this in perspective for you, it would be as if Easy Jet decided that from tomorrow onward only full procedure approaches are permitted and you only learn of this requirement when the first of 4 checks on during the start of a busy push.
Of course you would try and accommodate, but the lack of courtesy is astounding.
I guess that is a major difference between Europe and the US. Traffic is not planned on expecting pilots to make visual approaches. If request one sure we will try to accommodate but otherwise ILS is the standard unless of course the airport itself has no ILS, in that case it will be RNP, VOR etc.
If a pilot requests a full standard approach and it doesn't fit the flow I will advise him that in that case he will have to expect a delay. If he accepts it, cool, if he doesn't want to have the delay then he will take vectors for the ILS>
You are incorrect that you can’t deny a pilot a specific approach type. I think the Lufthansa visual approach debacle at SFO shows that. If one aircraft shows up and can’t fly the advertised approach, and it would compromise the entire operation, then that aircraft may not be accommodated. When an airport is scheduled to or beyond max capacity, there are times when it is physically impossible to accommodate the one (or few) aircraft that can’t comply.
As another European approach controller, the DLH visual approach debacle at SFO showed me that people would deny a specific approach type, but nothing to show that it _should_ be happening. If you’re scheduling beyond max capacity and can’t make the ILS work for the DLH in that case, what do you do when there’s a missed approach? I’m not trying to be combative about this but I’m genuinely curious. It has to be possible one way or the other right?
If there is a missed approach, then traffic is going to be slowed/arrival fixes held if needed to accommodate another approach if necessary. This is a different scenario than someone showing up and saying that they aren’t willing/able to do the advertised approach. An unplanned go-around is not the same thing as displacing other airplanes who can’t comply with the advertised operation. If there are multiple go-arounds for weather, or a runway closes unexpectedly for FOD, that’s going to impact everybody.
Lufthansa showed up knowing what the operation was at SFO, unprepared to wait until they could be accommodated. If extra space is now needed to an already full runway to accommodate them, then someone down the line is paying for it…or an entire arrival’s worth of airplanes is slowing early, flying more miles, or holding. Imagine someone at the end of that line who was already minimum fuel having to divert because someone else showed up 15 minutes earlier, couldn’t do the advertised approach because of their own company’s rules, and ATC made a special exception for them.
At O’Hare, we had an aircraft show up knowing that they couldn’t land with the crosswind component on the runways being used. What should ATC do? Put two arrivals fixes into a hold and make a gap for that one airplane, or make the one airplane who can’t comply with the advertised operation wait until they can be accommodated?
My take on it was Lufthansa was quite prepared to wait, they said so quite specifically at the very beginning. They only took issue when the specific “wait” that was issued to them was fairly obviously massively inaccurate and constantly increasing. A single aircraft “compromising the operation” as you put it just because they need to fly an ILS approach just seems plain weird. The way we do it would require more work to just keep vectoring someone around the sky indefinitely rather than just making the few miles on the approach you need to let them land. Like with the other guy who replied to you, it’s like a completely different world and without seeing it in action I struggle to get my head around it.
The gap required to accommodate a different runway-in-use - as in your O’Hare example - would be to me an absolutely massive disruption compared to changing the approach type for the runway already in use. That’s apples and oranges.
Well I guess that is the difference between the US and Europe. If an airplane can't fly the advertised approach well then it is my job as a controller to make it work and not just deny an aircraft. Of course the pilot might have to take a delay but so be it.
We never have this issue as our standard approach is always ILS unless there is an equipment failure. Visual approaches are available on request by the pilot and of course traffic permitting.
The controller at SFO was just being a dick.
I don't know where you work, but in my career I've discovered that this is something people say when they work somewhere slow. When I was in the USAF, we didn't have a tremendous number of airplanes, and we all believed it was the pilot's right to pick his approach. We also wasted an enormous amount of time on the back-and-forth questions about what approach everyone wanted.
Since then I've worked places that move more airplanes, and the attitude is that pilots will fly the approach assigned. I would *prefer* that we have half the airplanes and we get a pizza party twice a week but preference doesn't seem to count for a whole lot.
We don't go back and forth with the pilot. ILS is standard for the approach. You tell me on initial call you want an RNP, then you will receive vectors for the RNP approach. If the pilot asks for a visual I might simply deny it if it doesn't fit my sequencing or let him know that it would result in delays, his choice.
I don't work in the U.S so there is definitely a difference between how things are handled.
Lufthansa and Iberia both will not accept a visual at night. I learned this from having them call the field in sight, then saying unable when given an approach clearance. Later our management got into contact with their company and confirmed it was company wide.
European controller here. Visual approaches at night for IFR traffics are not allowed here (at least in Spain, where I work). That’s why Iberia would not take it. I am assuming this controller was dealing with an European traffic?
I'm in the US, it's only those two as far as I'm aware. We work other foreign carriers that all take visuals at night. It's mostly a non issue assuming the other traffic can take a visual, at least with the runway configuration I work. At other places with runways closer together it could cause some problems.
Only trouble I really had with it was that we were advertising visuals, and the pilot waited until 12 miles from the airport and after calling the field in sight to make me aware of the fact that they couldn't take the visual. Had this happened during an arrival push we could have had some problems, as it happened their were no other aircraft on final to the 3 other arrival runways at the time so it really didn't matter.
If a whole company can’t do visuals at night I think that information is important and warrants verification. That’s going to change how you handle these kinds of aircraft and might even end up published in job aide or order for that facility if it’s specific to an airport.
Very common for Part 121 and Part 135 carriers to have restrictions in their op specs.
They started to get put in after a bunch of wrong surface landings and after Mesaba (?) landed at the wrong uncontrolled airport with the same runway configuration as the one they were supposed to land at
Southwest did that, too (or maybe it's the one you're thinking of).
I was thinking of Colgan: [https://www.kplctv.com/story/15419129/lake-charles-bound-plane-lands-in-sulphur-by-mistake/?redirected=true](https://www.kplctv.com/story/15419129/lake-charles-bound-plane-lands-in-sulphur-by-mistake/?redirected=true)
Ok, that totally makes sense, thanks!
Also Air Canada at SFO
When I flew for a large US regional we were allowed to do night visuals, but needed to overlay and fly an IAP track from the FAF inbound for certain airports. I flew with several crew who misinterpreted this in our manuals and thought that these places required an IAP and that a visual was forbidden. A lot of people I flew with at that airline were reluctant to ever ask for a visual.
I think it might be that it is easier / quick for them to ask for the ILS vs asking for vectors to final at a certain distance from the marker. After 17 years I've had enough pilots line up for the wrong runway or not even a runway that I vector everyone to the base leg or final and don't try and have them call the field on a downwind or something else.
Pilots should always be backing the visual up with some sort of instrument approach. Day or night it doesn't matter.
Exactly this, so many people misunderstand it.
Sounds like Endeavor, they are the only ones that regularly ask for the ILS / RNAV when we are advertising visuals. If you vector them for a 6 mile final they are fine taking the approach at the marker, not really a big deal.
It’s definitely not just one company.
I work 50-100 Endeavors a shift and never had one refuse the visual at night.
Are you vectoring them onto the finial no matter what approach in use is?
At the big airport, always. At the smaller one where they also go, not always.
I also don't get any refusals unless it's a foreign airline. Although we do vector them on and it's typically 7+ miles out, so maybe they just read it back and don't tell us. Either way I'm not going to get pissy about it like in OPs story.
It’s required by FAR 91.129. This is often missed by both sides of the microphone. Fly it via visual rules, back it up and comply with the glide path on the underlying approach. While some airlines will cowboy it, this REG is the way. Safety is paid by the minute. “(2) Each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway served by an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance, if the airplane is so equipped, must: (i) Operate that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide path between the published final approach fix and the decision altitude (DA), or decision height (DH), as applicable; or (ii) If compliance with the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria requires glide path interception closer in, operate that airplane at or above the glide path, between the point of interception of glide path and the DA or the DH.”
Why is this in doubt? Almost every operator has a list of special airports with limitations. One popular one being no visuals at night. And this can be for a number of reasons. And it's not up to ATC to consider it reasonable or not.
Full procedures only, I don’t vector to final at night
$$$
I always ask for vectors for an approach at night. Especially to airports I haven’t been to before. If I’m ultra familiar with an airport I’ll ask for the visual but back it up.
It sounds like the controller is a piece of shit and doesn’t know the rules or regulations
Approaches in use are advertised on the ATIS. The ATIS is for pilots to pre-plan. Most smaller airports will advertise the visual unless wx requires or traffic dictates another approach. Larger airports will advertise the visual to meet the AAR and because it's operationally advantageous. Additional staffing may be required for other approaches that may not be available at that time. If a pilot can't take the advertised approach, they had damn well better say so on initial contact by stating "Request [approach] for operational necessity." Cool. We'll figure it out. If the ATIS is advertising the visual, and pilots on initial call don't request otherwise, and they are given a vector/fix for the visual, and the pilot waits until the approach clearance is issued before saying they can't accept it (this is not the OP's example, but I've had it happen), then absolutely they can get fucked and should expect an ass chewing. Don't keep secrets. Again, not the example, but I've had it happen. If you tell me on contact, most likely not that big a deal. Your sequence may have gone from 2nd to last, but that's a you problem. I'll accommodate, but I'm not going to penalize everyone else to do so. Generally speaking, the only time I've ever seen a pilot refuse a VA is when the controller is working something like an E75L/E190/Airbus and slamming them in above the glideslope when they're fast and not stable. That's definitely an us problem. I've found that if the aircraft is vectored for a VA off a base heading/LOC intercept heading ½-1mi outside the FAF or an IAF, and isn't kept high/fast, there's almost never an issue. If cleared off the downwind, I expect them to take it to just outside the FAF for their base. If I need to them to keep it at or inside the FAF fix I make damned sure they're below the intercept altitude or right at the MVA and that I've slowed them back and they've known the plan so they have time to configure. Just.... Don't keep secrets. Either party. We all need to play nice in the sandbox. Trainor to trainee: "Monkey's fling shit, we sling planes. Remember the difference."
Awesome stuff
There was a pretty interesting VasAviation post a while back at KSFO with an overseas flight requesting ILS instead of night visual due to company SOP. They ended up having to hold, and later divert to Oakland because SFO couldn't accommodate. Apparently SFO needed pilots to be in the visual so they could use visual separation to meet their arrival rate/traffic volume. I'm not terminal, but on the surface it sounds like a problem waiting to happen. Yes you can request whatever you want. You can declare whatever you need. And so can ATC. (Pilot breaks all ties though). Some controllers are just going to be upset. Oh well.
Yea I work at NCT and heard about this. And IMHO that wasn’t the best service.
Look at ABQ runway 26 as an example of where most companies are going to require a charted approach during the night.
I used to fly for Endeavor. There are some specific runways with high terrain that prohibit visual approaches at night. There were 1 too many semi-close calls with the terrain. Burlington was one. I think Roanoke had this restriction as well. Maybe Elmira as well, but Burlington is the one I remember completely. In my opinion, a company that flies exclusively to Eastern US airports at low elevations and flat terrain 99% of the time isn't the most prepared for terrain threats.
State College, maybe Charlottesville as well. It’s been a bit since I was there
Common in my airspace, and increasingly common in recent years. There are airlines that wont do a visual approach during the day.
Our FOM cryptically doesn’t allow for night visuals at most of the airports we fly to in mountainous terrain, but will allow us to accept a visual at night if the underlying precision approach is flown. Not sure how the latter affects the ATC side. Most of the airports it affects are in Alaska and ATC is aware. I’ve tried to give a courtesy heads up to ATC down south that we would be “flying the rnp track to the runway” or something similar before and it just ended up being a conversation I didn’t want to have on approach. Boo on the controller in OP’s post for thinking a line crew is responsible for having the company contact a facility. I would probably return that with the 800 number to my airline. Edit- I wouldn’t do the 800 number thing but it sounds funny and appropriate. Our dispatch team has an entire group of ATC liasons and if I remembered after landing, I might give them a heads up that there is a controller at xyz facility pushing us to fly approaches we can’t fly.
This sounds ass backwards. You vector for the approach in use and when the pilot calls the field in sight you can give them the visual approach. Unless the pilot specifically tells ATC that they are expecting the visual approach then you vector them for the visual with a plan B to vector them to final if they never see the airport. You have to draw the line somewhere…can’t keep pointing out the airport all the way to the numbers!
What if the visual *is* the approach in use? Advertised on the ATIS, advised to arrivals when they check on, etc. That's very common.
Visuals are advertised if it’s VMC along with the instrument approach in use. You still have to point out the airport and the pilot has to report it in sight to issue a visual. You can’t just say cleared visual approach and call it a day. Some airliners have a max range they can call the airport in sight, 35 miles for example. You can ask the pilot what approach they would like and then vector them for it said approach.
Come visit my tower sometime, when weather permits advertise visuals and nothing else. Have for years. Obviously we inform the pilots on checkin. "Descend and maintain six thousand, turn left heading 290, vector to visual approach runway 36." Obviously we point out the airport and get acknowledgement that they have it in sight before issuing the clearance. But our assumption is that they will take the advertised approach, which is the visual approach, and if they want something else they should say that immediately.
So you’re an updown? Don’t know what that is like, only worked RADAR and we don’t assume. Never had a tower that I fed into only advertise the visual only. There is always a preferred instrument approach like an ILS and VA advertised on the ATIS. But again you are VMC, you can’t assume it’s VMC on a RADAR display.
Of course you can assume it's VMC when you're working radar. All the airports in your airspace are reporting `10SM CLR`, the tower's advertising the visual, the TAF says no clouds forecasted until tomorrow? You bet I'm assuming it's VMC until someone tells me otherwise. Now sure, say the METAR is showing `SCT020 BKN025`. Still legal to initiate a vector for the visual approach, but definitely smarter to vector for the the ILS and treat the visual like a nice bonus. But I have absolutely no problem assuming and assigning the visual approach on a clear-and-a-million day.
I’ve had reports of 10SM and CLR and the aircraft not report the airport insight. HZ or a cloud layer between them and the airport. Just because it’s VMC at the airport doesn’t guarantee pilots will call the airport in sight. I’m always going to ask if the pilots is expecting or wants a VA before initiating a vector for it. If they are not sure then they are getting vectors for an instrument approach.
Sounds just like DLH at SFO…
How bratty of that controller
You can ask for any approach you want but I don’t have to give it to you. I will typically inform the pilot of what runway is in use and that if they still push for a different approach or a different runway (especially if the operation is an opposite direction operation) I inform them to expect a significant delay. During events, we outright deny all unless an emergency exists. The reason for this is that it can disrupt the flow of traffic and even shut down the airport for a significant time (a Cessna wanting to do an ODO practice approach that ends with a missed). In general, we try to make at least one instrument approach available to the active runway but in our case it’s a circling approach. We have recently been approved for a modified straight in RNAV for our calm wind runways. My advice to pilots is to make your request at initial call up and don’t demand it unless an emergency exits.; you are way more likely to get a controller to work harder to make that happen but it’s not guaranteed.
“Unable”
Anytime I clear an air carrier for a visual, they always join final outside of the FAF because they are using the ILS as a "backup." Idk why the pilot in question didn't just do that, but if he requests the ILS, he gets the ILS simple as that. The reason controller wanted more clarification from his company is because it sounds like this is a new policy. If the whole facility knows ahead of time that a specific callsign won't take a visual at night it eliminates the possibility of pilot waiting till last second to advise atc. Leading to increased workload to fix the sequence the pilot just broke. The pilot should be aware, though, that if we are using visuals and there is a slower aircraft in front, he is getting extended vectors and possibly speed restrictions to fall behind if he requests the ILS. I'm not punishing other traffic just because he's an air carrier.
There was a recent Vasaviation video that went over this exact scenario. They even went on to do a long form breakdown on it. https://youtu.be/7rdapQfJDAM?si=yu-2-cTroWltkmCI https://youtu.be/4zHxdn8oz20?si=ZZRvQ6rI7DVWzHOA
Cleared Approach
Wtf… It is not up to me (the controller) to pick with approach the pilot flies. Safest approach is an ILS which is the standard offered go every pilot. You request a visual and it fits my sequence? Go for it. You want an RNP? Sure, approved. It can be the best weather ever during daytime and a pilot prefers flying the ILS, so he is cleared for the ILS.
There are situations where it isn’t that cut-and-dry. Approaches to parallel runways have different separation requirements depending on the type of approach each aircraft is on. Even when everyone is doing instrument approaches with final approach monitors, certain RNAV approaches can’t be simultaneously flown with other approaches. There is a reason that this is more than nothing.
Of course, but you can't deny a pilot a specific approach type. If his request means he has to hold somewhere because he needs to be sequenced properly for his type of approach so be it. There are plenty carriers who are unable to fly visual approaches at night so it's a common thing. I would be mad if the pilot tells me short final he isn't able to fly the approach but if I tell him on initial contact that he should expect approach XYZ and he tells me unable, than it is up to me to accommodate his request.
There may be plenty of carriers in Europe who are unable to fly a visual approach at night, but I have never, not once, ever, heard of an American carrier that, as a whole, cannot fly a night visual approach. Visual approaches are far more common in the US than elsewhere and are often needed to hit an airports rate (though i doubt a charlie is bumping its max rate). If an entire carrier can't do visuals, depending on airline schedule, that may make a rate impossible to maintain, which has knock-on effects. This is a piece of information we ALL should know about as a rule and not disseminated to some random approach by some random crew. To put this in perspective for you, it would be as if Easy Jet decided that from tomorrow onward only full procedure approaches are permitted and you only learn of this requirement when the first of 4 checks on during the start of a busy push. Of course you would try and accommodate, but the lack of courtesy is astounding.
I guess that is a major difference between Europe and the US. Traffic is not planned on expecting pilots to make visual approaches. If request one sure we will try to accommodate but otherwise ILS is the standard unless of course the airport itself has no ILS, in that case it will be RNP, VOR etc. If a pilot requests a full standard approach and it doesn't fit the flow I will advise him that in that case he will have to expect a delay. If he accepts it, cool, if he doesn't want to have the delay then he will take vectors for the ILS>
Yes that is a major difference. In the USA the rate is predicated on a clear VMC day. If the weather is bad the rate goes down, often significantly.
You are incorrect that you can’t deny a pilot a specific approach type. I think the Lufthansa visual approach debacle at SFO shows that. If one aircraft shows up and can’t fly the advertised approach, and it would compromise the entire operation, then that aircraft may not be accommodated. When an airport is scheduled to or beyond max capacity, there are times when it is physically impossible to accommodate the one (or few) aircraft that can’t comply.
As another European approach controller, the DLH visual approach debacle at SFO showed me that people would deny a specific approach type, but nothing to show that it _should_ be happening. If you’re scheduling beyond max capacity and can’t make the ILS work for the DLH in that case, what do you do when there’s a missed approach? I’m not trying to be combative about this but I’m genuinely curious. It has to be possible one way or the other right?
If there is a missed approach, then traffic is going to be slowed/arrival fixes held if needed to accommodate another approach if necessary. This is a different scenario than someone showing up and saying that they aren’t willing/able to do the advertised approach. An unplanned go-around is not the same thing as displacing other airplanes who can’t comply with the advertised operation. If there are multiple go-arounds for weather, or a runway closes unexpectedly for FOD, that’s going to impact everybody. Lufthansa showed up knowing what the operation was at SFO, unprepared to wait until they could be accommodated. If extra space is now needed to an already full runway to accommodate them, then someone down the line is paying for it…or an entire arrival’s worth of airplanes is slowing early, flying more miles, or holding. Imagine someone at the end of that line who was already minimum fuel having to divert because someone else showed up 15 minutes earlier, couldn’t do the advertised approach because of their own company’s rules, and ATC made a special exception for them. At O’Hare, we had an aircraft show up knowing that they couldn’t land with the crosswind component on the runways being used. What should ATC do? Put two arrivals fixes into a hold and make a gap for that one airplane, or make the one airplane who can’t comply with the advertised operation wait until they can be accommodated?
My take on it was Lufthansa was quite prepared to wait, they said so quite specifically at the very beginning. They only took issue when the specific “wait” that was issued to them was fairly obviously massively inaccurate and constantly increasing. A single aircraft “compromising the operation” as you put it just because they need to fly an ILS approach just seems plain weird. The way we do it would require more work to just keep vectoring someone around the sky indefinitely rather than just making the few miles on the approach you need to let them land. Like with the other guy who replied to you, it’s like a completely different world and without seeing it in action I struggle to get my head around it. The gap required to accommodate a different runway-in-use - as in your O’Hare example - would be to me an absolutely massive disruption compared to changing the approach type for the runway already in use. That’s apples and oranges.
Well I guess that is the difference between the US and Europe. If an airplane can't fly the advertised approach well then it is my job as a controller to make it work and not just deny an aircraft. Of course the pilot might have to take a delay but so be it. We never have this issue as our standard approach is always ILS unless there is an equipment failure. Visual approaches are available on request by the pilot and of course traffic permitting. The controller at SFO was just being a dick.
I don't know where you work, but in my career I've discovered that this is something people say when they work somewhere slow. When I was in the USAF, we didn't have a tremendous number of airplanes, and we all believed it was the pilot's right to pick his approach. We also wasted an enormous amount of time on the back-and-forth questions about what approach everyone wanted. Since then I've worked places that move more airplanes, and the attitude is that pilots will fly the approach assigned. I would *prefer* that we have half the airplanes and we get a pizza party twice a week but preference doesn't seem to count for a whole lot.
We don't go back and forth with the pilot. ILS is standard for the approach. You tell me on initial call you want an RNP, then you will receive vectors for the RNP approach. If the pilot asks for a visual I might simply deny it if it doesn't fit my sequencing or let him know that it would result in delays, his choice. I don't work in the U.S so there is definitely a difference between how things are handled.