Q

[Stuart King]

I was enroute from FLO direct to JZI. I was suffering in severe clear with
no turbulence at all.

About 20nm out, ATC gives me "N1234, proceed direct CHS Vortac and hold as
published, EFC xyz".

I reply "roger direct CHS and hold as published, EFC xyz, ....is there a
reason for this ? " sometimes we're casual is SC.

ATC: " Ive got one inbound to JZI on the visual approach, and then i will
let you go in"

me :" roger, how about i go direct JZI and cancel when i see it"

ATC: "N1234 that will be great, proceed as requested"

JZI is uncontrolled.

Does this mean you can't have more than one plane on the visual approach ?



SK

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stuart King" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I was enroute from FLO direct to JZI. I was suffering in severe
> clear with no turbulence at all.
>
> About 20nm out, ATC gives me "N1234, proceed direct CHS
> Vortac and hold as published, EFC xyz".
>
> I reply "roger direct CHS and hold as published, EFC xyz, ....is there
> a reason for this ? " sometimes we're casual is SC.
>
> ATC: " Ive got one inbound to JZI on the visual approach, and then
> i will let you go in"
>
> me :" roger, how about i go direct JZI and cancel when i see it"
>
> ATC: "N1234 that will be great, proceed as requested"
>
> JZI is uncontrolled.
>
> Does this mean you can't have more than one plane on the visual
> approach ?
>

No. Visual separation can be used on visual approaches.

[Stan Gosnell]

"Stuart King" > wrote in
. com:

> Does this mean you can't have more than one plane on the visual
> approach ?

It means you can't have more than one IFR plane on the visual approach.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Andrew Sarangan]

Stan Gosnell > wrote in news:Xns94D4B98E0B286stang@
204.52.135.40:

> "Stuart King" > wrote in
> . com:
>
>> Does this mean you can't have more than one plane on the visual
>> approach ?
>
> It means you can't have more than one IFR plane on the visual approach.
>

So why does the AIM say that you can be cleared for the visual approach if
you have the preceding aircraft in sight?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
>
> It means you can't have more than one IFR plane on the
> visual approach.
>

A visual approach is an IFR operation.

[Stan Gosnell]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in
. 158:

> So why does the AIM say that you can be cleared for the visual
> approach if you have the preceding aircraft in sight?

ATC must provide separation between IFR aircraft. This can be done by the
aircraft reporting and agreeing to maintain visual separation, by radar
separation, or by nonradar separation if there is no radar coverage. With
dozens, or even hundreds, of aircraft lined up for landing at a major
airport, getting the other aircraft is sight is often not a problem. At an
uncontrolled airfield in the boonies, it might be, and it appeared to me
that they were too far apart to see each other in the OP, thus center has
to protect the airspace for the aircraft on the approach.

--
Regards,

Stan

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It means you can't have more than one IFR plane on the
> > visual approach.
> >
>
> A visual approach is an IFR operation.

An airplane is an aircraft.

[Stuart King]

I guess I also wonder why then can I do a contact approach, but not a visual
approach while maintaining visual seperation.

Although in my example I was not going to be allowed to get close enough to
make visual contact.

SK

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > "Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > It means you can't have more than one IFR plane on the
> > > visual approach.
> > >
> >
> > A visual approach is an IFR operation.
>
> An airplane is an aircraft.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stuart King" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> I guess I also wonder why then can I do a contact approach, but
> not a visual approach while maintaining visual seperation.
>

You CAN do a visual approach while maintaining visual separation.

[Stuart King]

Yes, but ATC was going to make me hold about 12 miles away, so I would not
be able to make a visual contact, and then see and avoid.

SK

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Stuart King" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > I guess I also wonder why then can I do a contact approach, but
> > not a visual approach while maintaining visual seperation.
> >
>
> You CAN do a visual approach while maintaining visual separation.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stuart King" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Yes, but ATC was going to make me hold about 12 miles away,
> so I would not be able to make a visual contact, and then see
> and avoid.
>

Well, what's possible and what you experienced are two different things.

[SeeAndAvoid]

I was just training someone on position the other day and this came up.
You CAN have more than one aircraft on the visual approach, but
you either have to keep them in trail and separated, or get the back
one to see the front and follow him in. The latter is not as simple
as it seems, as let's say you have one right behind another, by right
behind I mean at least 5 miles since that is our separation standard.
It's unlikely the trailing aircraft will see the other 5 miles (or more,
who runs a bare 5 with someone slowing in front) ahead, so you have
to use more and figure in compression. Thankfully there is no missed
approach on the front guy so you don't have to worry about him climbing
and maybe starting a 180 degree turn shortly after 'missing'.

Sometimes more space is built in where radar is questionable, or
at an uncontrolled field where landing/cancellation wont be immediate
like it would be with a tower, or if it's not a straight-in - time for
downwind,
etc.

The "following the preceding aircraft" thing is great, when you can get it,
mostly you cant. About the only way I get it to happen is to get them
real close, like one on a 5 mile final and one descending above him head
on, at night this works pretty good. The other way is to have one overtake
the other, but I have to keep vertical until visual takes over. Or if they
are somewhat matched speeds right behind each other, try to get em within
2 miles, again keeping vertical, get visual and clear the back one to follow
the front.

Here's why you'll get hesitation from the controller, at centers anyway:
Nearly every operation like I described above will set off the OEDP,
Operational Error Detection Program, or 'snitch', 'squeal a deal', whatever
you want to call it. That leads to a non-controller up front calling an
occasional controller, your supervisor, who then questions what you
are doing. Let's say one of those aint your best buddy and decides to
pull a tape and you leave one word out, or the readback was garbled
or the pilot read back everything right but one word, etc etc. This has
never happened to me, but you can see how some would rather not
deal with the hassle and just wait a few minutes more. Like it or not,
that's the reality of how it is.
Hope that helped, Chris

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I was just training someone on position the other day and this came up.
> You CAN have more than one aircraft on the visual approach, but
> you either have to keep them in trail and separated, or get the back
> one to see the front and follow him in. The latter is not as simple
> as it seems, as let's say you have one right behind another, by right
> behind I mean at least 5 miles since that is our separation standard.
> It's unlikely the trailing aircraft will see the other 5 miles (or more,
> who runs a bare 5 with someone slowing in front) ahead, so you have
> to use more and figure in compression.
>

Use vertical. The second aircraft is more likely to see the first from 1000
feet above than 31,000 feet behind.

[J Haggerty]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
>
> Use vertical. The second aircraft is more likely to see the first from 1000
> feet above than 31,000 feet behind.
>
That's what he said, 3rd paragraph.

JPH