Established on LOC, cleared for visual?

[ljg]

I had a quick question. At certain airports I hit, approach will vector most airplanes to the localizer course, descend them to an appropriate altitude to intercept the glideslope, and then clear the airplane for a visual approach once it is established. This happens frequently in MEM.

From the controller's perspective, is there any advantage to clearing an airplane that is established inbound on the localizer course for a visual?

Thx

[N519AT]

I'm not a controller, but my guess is that "Intercept the localizer" for the visual approach aides in 2 things:

1.) When having to say "Airport X O'clock, Y miles, report the field in sight", it could create problems with the pilot looking for the field, not finding it and eventually going through the extended centerline of the runway. Not to mention more talking on the radio, more chances for the pilot/controller to misinterpret what is being said and a mistake is made.

2.) The approach controller can make a more squared off pattern by having them on base, turning them to intercept and then clearing the aircraft for the approach...as opposed to turning the aircraft in the direction of the field, then clearing for the approach...which results in a more rounder pattern.

Those are my guesses.

[Ian J]

It relieves the controller from separation and wake turbulence separation requirements.

[DE727UPS]

He better not be clearin' you for the visual unless you call the airport.

[ljg]

No, pilot always has the field in sight.

That's probably it...controllers get the uniformity of arrivals on the localizer without being responsible for aircraft seperation and wake tb. Thanks!

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by Ian J

It relieves the controller from separation and wake turbulence separation requirements.

Bingo

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

He better not be clearin' you for the visual unless you call the airport.

And exactly.

Certainly the guys at MEM TRACON are not dropping the ball and issuing visual approaches when trailing aircraft have neither the field, and/or the following aircraft in sight - then it's pointless.

But I honestly doubt that is happening, perhaps the original poster just didn't mention it (controllers asking to confirm visual of traffic / field).

[queeno]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Bingo



And exactly.

Certainly the guys at MEM TRACON are not dropping the ball and issuing visual approaches when trailing aircraft have neither the field, and/or the following aircraft in sight - then it's pointless.

But I honestly doubt that is happening, perhaps the original poster just didn't mention it (controllers asking to confirm visual of traffic / field).

wrong the controller is still provideing wake turb spacing unless the aircraft has the other aircraft in sight , just having the airport in sight dose not relive the controller of wake turb seperation. vectoring an aircraft to the loc on a visuisl approach allows the controller to control the turn point and spacing on final.

[surreal1221]

I never said anything about wake turb.

But, on that note . . . I said Bingo to Ian J, because separation standards are now the responsibility of the pilot (who says they have the traffic in sight) who has been told "maintain visual separation...follow the traffic, cleared visual approach runway XXR/C/L." Wake turb avoidance is now, squarely in the hands of the crew.

Which, looks like exactly what you are saying, and is exactly what Ian J said, and exactly why I said bingo.

What I did write was,

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Certainly the guys at MEM TRACON are not dropping the ball and issuing visual approaches when trailing aircraft have neither the field, and/or the following aircraft in sight.

[ankara_acc]

ı am writing from turkey, so we appliy rules depended ıcao.For the trafics approaching a field, the first rule is ceeling and visibility.Before starting a vector for visuall approach, controller must be sure that ceeling higher than the first approach altitude. The other main rule is pilot's report of field in sigth.

If pilot reports the field and traffic in sigth, controller may clear the traffic for visual app. But atc still has responsibility of seperation for succeeding aircrafts.For preceeding aircraft pilot responsible.A caution announce for wake turb. may be ıssued by controller.

Question seems a specific application regarding the situation of the traffics and the field. If trff. vector to a point that considered starting point for vis. app., mrva(min. radar vector altitude) values valid.( while ı am in operation, ı use the outer marker as referance point, trff. most probably could have field in sigth untill om.). So the controller at MEM may think that ıls course is the guarenteed way,untıll field in sigth. And in case of unexpected situation( if negative in sigth etc.) pilot can continıue on glideslope and finish his approach.

If a trf. vectored for visual app., you should give a true path for loosing altitude and chance for field in sigth.

[Mike_E]

Originally Posted by queeno

wrong the controller is still provideing wake turb spacing unless the aircraft has the other aircraft in sight , just having the airport in sight dose not relive the controller of wake turb seperation. vectoring an aircraft to the loc on a visuisl approach allows the controller to control the turn point and spacing on final.

As a former FAA controller this is what we do. Why? Because you want to have positive control all the time. The last thing we want is to have a deal.

[ljg]

Just want to clarify from the original post. I omitted that the pilot always has and reports the field in sight before being cleared for visual approach. MEM Tracon has never dropped the ball.

[exleardriver]

i agree about the controllers wishing to control turning/spacing. i like to try and cancel ifr as soon as practical, especially when able to accept a visual approach to help reduce the controller's separation workload, and certainly after having reported field/preceding aircraft in sight, as ljg added.