"Going for the Visual"

Stan Gosnell wrote:
I have to agree that center is incorrect in giving a clearance for a visual
when you don't have the airport in sight.

I've always figured, "cleared visual" is just a shorthand way of
avoiding the following conversation: "Report the airport in sight",
"Field in sight", The visual approach is available if you'd like it",
"Request visual", "Cleared visual approach". It's one transmission
instead of five, and while it may not meet the letter of the law, it's
pretty unlikely to cause any confusion or harm.

On the other hand, I've had NY Approach trying hard to sell me a visual
when I was in solid IMC. I can only assume that based on the best
weather information the controller had, he thought things were better
than they really were. For all I know, the guy in front of me was in a
hurry, didn't mind cheating, and gave a bogus pirep to approach to get
in faster.

So, I think the bottom line is if you're offered a visual and you don't
think it makes sense, simply follow Nancy Reagan's advice: 'Just say
"No"'.

(Snowbird) wrote
Well, there isn't an SIAP and IIRC one can't fly a contact approach
to an airport without an SIAP.

You recall correctly. The visual is the only choice here.

But otherwise, I think you've got a great point. A cruise clearance
would accomplish exactly what we both want, and be perfectly legal.

OK, now ask yourself why you weren't issued a cruise clearance, when
that's the legal way of accomplishing what you both want. Some
suggested answers:

(a) The controller is ornery and likes breaking the rules
(b) The controller doesn't care about rules and can't be bothered to
do anything differently.
(c) The controller doesn't believe in cruise clearances
(d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances

Which do YOU think is correct?

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

OK, now ask yourself why you weren't issued a cruise clearance, when
that's the legal way of accomplishing what you both want. Some
suggested answers:

(a) The controller is ornery and likes breaking the rules
(b) The controller doesn't care about rules and can't be bothered to
do anything differently.
(c) The controller doesn't believe in cruise clearances
(d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances

Which do YOU think is correct?


d

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control
[...]
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.

Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway, but not the
airport, in sight?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway,
but not the airport, in sight?


Beats the hell outta me.

Roy Smith wrote in
:

I've always figured, "cleared visual" is just a shorthand way of
avoiding the following conversation: "Report the airport in sight",
"Field in sight", The visual approach is available if you'd like it",
"Request visual", "Cleared visual approach". It's one transmission
instead of five, and while it may not meet the letter of the law, it's
pretty unlikely to cause any confusion or harm.

What I normally hear is "Airport 12 o'clock and 10 miles, report it in
sight". When I do report the airport in sight, I get a clearance for a
visual approach. If I'm still in IMC when I receive the first
transmission, I tell approach that I am and what approach I want.
Technically, it's not legal for the controller to clear you for a visual
until you report the airport in sight. The fact that some do doesn't
legalize it, but I'm sure it still happens, likely more in some places than
others. I've never had it happen down here.

--
Regards,

Stan

Roy Smith wrote in news:roy-
:

Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway, but not the
airport, in sight?

Roy, you're expecting logic from the FAA? ??? :-D

--
Regards,

Stan

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message =
ink.net...
=20
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway,
but not the airport, in sight?

=20
Beats the hell outta me.
=20
=20

Case of airport OR runway:
At big places like KIAD and CYYZ,
it's easy to have a runway in sight, but not the whole airport.
Been there, done that.
Probably the same at KDFW and KDEN, too.

Case of airport-only (with no control tower):
Special consideration for those hard-to-see grass strips, maybe?
---JRC---

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
...

Case of airport OR runway:
At big places like KIAD and CYYZ,
it's easy to have a runway in sight, but not the whole airport.
Been there, done that.
Probably the same at KDFW and KDEN, too.


There's no requirement to see the whole airport.

In article ,
Stan Gosnell wrote:

Roy Smith wrote in news:roy-
:

Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway, but not the
airport, in sight?

Roy, you're expecting logic from the FAA? ??? :-D

I know, I should be ashamed of myself.