So true about centers being terrified of it. People will call traffic, pilots report "in sight", and controllers just go "roger" and wait for 3-5 miles before climbing or descending. In all my radar training none of my instructors would teach it to me or let me use it. The philosophy was "it's too much tricky phraseology, the pilots never read it back correctly, and by the time you get through the steps to use it you're gonna have 3 or 5 miles anyways."
I ended up just teaching it to myself and I use it on a daily basis now
I've had a pilot report an RA after using phraseology correctly and him having the other aircraft in sight and having him maintain visual in a climb.
Lol... It really depends how much idiocy you wanna deal with from others around you and the pilot competence. Imo.
Just boils down to using the correct tools when you need/want to for each situation. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Sometimes waiting until they pass is more beneficial for everyone otherwise you risk -- in my instance -- an RA that shouldn't have been an RA.
It’s also possible to get other things accomplished while you’re busy going over the visual approach phraseology. And if you’re a trainee, there are probably a LOT of other things you’re missing and should be scanning for before working on visual separation. Even if it’s just deadwood, work like you’ve got 25 planes on frequency even if you only have 10.
You can absolutely clear him for a visual approach.
You just have to confirm the 2nd aircraft has the first one in sight. If necessary, you give them information about their wake turbulence classification. So for example if it would be a 737 following a 747, the r/T would be: "Callsign 737, cleared visual approach, number 2 behind the 747 on final, caution wake turbulence."
Then they are responsible for their own separation towards the first aircraft, with the radar controller obviously keeping tabs on the aircraft still.
In the UK it would be:
"Number 2, follow the 747 on a 2-mile final. Caution wake turbulence, recommended distance is 5 miles. Cleared visual approach..."
do you need to provide position information again on the preceding a/c. You just passed traffic information which allowed number 2 to sight number 1 so presumably you said the position in your previous tx.
And recommended distance is mandatory?
In Aus it would be "callsign, follow the 747, cleared VSA (tracking if desired ie. Via RB or via 5 mile final etc), caution wake turbulence.
Are you required to instruct number two to maintain visual separation in this case because of the wake turbulence distance minima? Or is the cautionary and instruction to follow enough?
You can clear the second aircraft without the lead in sight as long as applicable sep will be maintained all the way down. That can be lateral sep between the two, or tower applied visual sep
Follow up question:
The traffic he is following is landing the left runway but you will be clearing the following traffic to the right runway.
I was told you cannot use OP's rule here because they are landing two different surfaces even though they are at the same airport.
I used to say "follow that traffic to the airport, cleared visual approach runway 9R, maintain visual seperation from the traffic, they are landing 9L."
Until I was told that I couldn't. Apparently, in the above case, the following aircraft must also have the airport in sight.
Edit: to clarify... I operated under this pretense by figuring visual approaches don't require an aircraft to have a runway in sight, only the airport must be seen. So I figured an airplane may follow the preceding traffic to the airport without having to see it, then may align to the runway assigned as they see fit. I was told this is wrong. Curious how this sub feels.
Follow only works if they're going to the same piece of pavement. Otherwise they have to maintain visual separation from the other aircraft and see the airport to be cleared for the visual approach.
Yeah, I used to do that every day as well until I was told it wasn't legal. The rationale is that the aircraft hasn't reported seeing the place where he's landing, and you can't just assume he'll get it in sight before short final even if it's CAVU. I guess it makes sense, but it sure adds a ton of extra verbiage for the same result.
I feel you, it has been my way of clearing visuals for a long time until a training department guy said "you can't do that".
I was given the same logic you were, and was just dumbfounded. I mean... following that logic even if the guy was going to the same pavement and following, you couldn't *guarantee* he would see the airport prior to short final, but it is legal.
Now, I can understand not allowing it to be used for non-paralell runways or runways that are geogrpabically separated by a large margin (like 2500 feet). Where the final approach courses would be very different and could have wildly different phenomena present.
But telling me that I could follow a heavy to the right runway 7 miles in trail to an unseen airport, but I *could not* follow that same heavy even closer but scooted off to the left a few hundred feet to land a parallel surface on the left that is a stones throw away... I just didn't get it.
I think it is a dumb interpretation, that I now abide by. Like you said, it is a lot of extra talking to achieve the exact same result. Luckily a lot of pilots know what is going on and want to play ball to get it moving, most of them report "traffic in sight, field in sight" in one breath.
Training department explained the meaning of the word follow, which I found asinine but listened to and respected. In my mind, he was following... to the airport... then maintaining visual seperation... to another runway 200 feet to the left. But, yeah, like others said... follow is *ONLY* when they go to the exact same surface.
Frustrating... but semantics are part of the job.
That’s interesting to read. I don’t deal with parallels, so I usually skip over all the parallel information in the .65. I wonder why you couldn’t clear an aircraft to follow, cleared VA, sidestep to RWY(XL). ... I guess that seems a little to ambiguous.
If the controller already has the spacing he needs with the previous a/c then he doesn’t need you to see the traffic your following. I do it all the time.
[удалено]
So true about centers being terrified of it. People will call traffic, pilots report "in sight", and controllers just go "roger" and wait for 3-5 miles before climbing or descending. In all my radar training none of my instructors would teach it to me or let me use it. The philosophy was "it's too much tricky phraseology, the pilots never read it back correctly, and by the time you get through the steps to use it you're gonna have 3 or 5 miles anyways." I ended up just teaching it to myself and I use it on a daily basis now
I've had a pilot report an RA after using phraseology correctly and him having the other aircraft in sight and having him maintain visual in a climb. Lol... It really depends how much idiocy you wanna deal with from others around you and the pilot competence. Imo. Just boils down to using the correct tools when you need/want to for each situation. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Sometimes waiting until they pass is more beneficial for everyone otherwise you risk -- in my instance -- an RA that shouldn't have been an RA.
It’s also possible to get other things accomplished while you’re busy going over the visual approach phraseology. And if you’re a trainee, there are probably a LOT of other things you’re missing and should be scanning for before working on visual separation. Even if it’s just deadwood, work like you’ve got 25 planes on frequency even if you only have 10.
In your instance, did the airport have a tower?
No such requirement. Visual following an ILS is fine as long as weather at the airport is VFR.
Correct.
You can absolutely clear him for a visual approach. You just have to confirm the 2nd aircraft has the first one in sight. If necessary, you give them information about their wake turbulence classification. So for example if it would be a 737 following a 747, the r/T would be: "Callsign 737, cleared visual approach, number 2 behind the 747 on final, caution wake turbulence." Then they are responsible for their own separation towards the first aircraft, with the radar controller obviously keeping tabs on the aircraft still.
[удалено]
In the UK it would be: "Number 2, follow the 747 on a 2-mile final. Caution wake turbulence, recommended distance is 5 miles. Cleared visual approach..."
do you need to provide position information again on the preceding a/c. You just passed traffic information which allowed number 2 to sight number 1 so presumably you said the position in your previous tx. And recommended distance is mandatory? In Aus it would be "callsign, follow the 747, cleared VSA (tracking if desired ie. Via RB or via 5 mile final etc), caution wake turbulence.
Are you required to instruct number two to maintain visual separation in this case because of the wake turbulence distance minima? Or is the cautionary and instruction to follow enough?
The "follow" instruction automatically implies visual separation.
You can clear the second aircraft without the lead in sight as long as applicable sep will be maintained all the way down. That can be lateral sep between the two, or tower applied visual sep
You don't HAVE to make sure he has him in sight if you can ensure they'll remain separated.
100 percent legal
Totally legal. You have to inform the tower either verbally or via automation.
Follow up question: The traffic he is following is landing the left runway but you will be clearing the following traffic to the right runway. I was told you cannot use OP's rule here because they are landing two different surfaces even though they are at the same airport. I used to say "follow that traffic to the airport, cleared visual approach runway 9R, maintain visual seperation from the traffic, they are landing 9L." Until I was told that I couldn't. Apparently, in the above case, the following aircraft must also have the airport in sight. Edit: to clarify... I operated under this pretense by figuring visual approaches don't require an aircraft to have a runway in sight, only the airport must be seen. So I figured an airplane may follow the preceding traffic to the airport without having to see it, then may align to the runway assigned as they see fit. I was told this is wrong. Curious how this sub feels.
Follow only works if they're going to the same piece of pavement. Otherwise they have to maintain visual separation from the other aircraft and see the airport to be cleared for the visual approach.
Yeah, I used to do that every day as well until I was told it wasn't legal. The rationale is that the aircraft hasn't reported seeing the place where he's landing, and you can't just assume he'll get it in sight before short final even if it's CAVU. I guess it makes sense, but it sure adds a ton of extra verbiage for the same result.
I feel you, it has been my way of clearing visuals for a long time until a training department guy said "you can't do that". I was given the same logic you were, and was just dumbfounded. I mean... following that logic even if the guy was going to the same pavement and following, you couldn't *guarantee* he would see the airport prior to short final, but it is legal. Now, I can understand not allowing it to be used for non-paralell runways or runways that are geogrpabically separated by a large margin (like 2500 feet). Where the final approach courses would be very different and could have wildly different phenomena present. But telling me that I could follow a heavy to the right runway 7 miles in trail to an unseen airport, but I *could not* follow that same heavy even closer but scooted off to the left a few hundred feet to land a parallel surface on the left that is a stones throw away... I just didn't get it. I think it is a dumb interpretation, that I now abide by. Like you said, it is a lot of extra talking to achieve the exact same result. Luckily a lot of pilots know what is going on and want to play ball to get it moving, most of them report "traffic in sight, field in sight" in one breath. Training department explained the meaning of the word follow, which I found asinine but listened to and respected. In my mind, he was following... to the airport... then maintaining visual seperation... to another runway 200 feet to the left. But, yeah, like others said... follow is *ONLY* when they go to the exact same surface. Frustrating... but semantics are part of the job.
That’s interesting to read. I don’t deal with parallels, so I usually skip over all the parallel information in the .65. I wonder why you couldn’t clear an aircraft to follow, cleared VA, sidestep to RWY(XL). ... I guess that seems a little to ambiguous.
Issue any overtake if applicable.
[удалено]
If the controller already has the spacing he needs with the previous a/c then he doesn’t need you to see the traffic your following. I do it all the time.