"Cleared Visual Approach"
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:51 pm
I was listening to ATC while flying on United into Denver from LAX tonight and I heard some clearances that didn't sound right to me, so I thought I'd ask about them here.
The weather was something like 12,000 scattered and visibility was very good below the cloud layer. We were flying the PEEKK ONE arrival, a almost pure RNAV STAR with a profile descent, which you can see here http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1213/09077PEEKK_C.PDF. As you'll see, it puts arrivals on a nice "downwind" leg that I suspect is intended to allow controllers to more easily sequence arrivals into the RWY 16 complex -- it reminds me of the SADDE SIX arrival into LAX for the RWY 24 complex there.
From what I could hear, we were going to be number three or four to land behind other traffic also inbound from the west, and there was other traffic behind us also flying the PEEKK ONE.
Approach control turned one of the planes in front of us to a "base" leg and then gave them the choice of runway 16L or R (there apparently weren't any arrivals coming in from the east at that time). As it happens, they chose 16R. As soon as they made their choice, the controller cleared them for a visual approach to 16R. The next plane also chose the right, and after confirming he had the traffic in front of him was also cleared for a visual approach to 16R. Our pilot chose 16L, and was similarly cleared for a visual approach, as, ultimately, was the plane behind us. The plane behind us was warned they were following a Boeing 757, but ATC never asked if our "trailer" had us in sight.
Here is what I don't understand: at no time did the controller ever ask anybody if they had the airport in sight. I thought that a visual approach REQUIRED that a pilot have the airport in sight OR have the traffic in front of them that was flying a visual approach in sight? Only one of the planes was asked if they had traffic in sight, and at least two of the planes were cleared for the visual approach without reporting (or being asked if) they had the airport in sight.
What am I misunderstanding about visual approach clearances?
-M.
The weather was something like 12,000 scattered and visibility was very good below the cloud layer. We were flying the PEEKK ONE arrival, a almost pure RNAV STAR with a profile descent, which you can see here http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1213/09077PEEKK_C.PDF. As you'll see, it puts arrivals on a nice "downwind" leg that I suspect is intended to allow controllers to more easily sequence arrivals into the RWY 16 complex -- it reminds me of the SADDE SIX arrival into LAX for the RWY 24 complex there.
From what I could hear, we were going to be number three or four to land behind other traffic also inbound from the west, and there was other traffic behind us also flying the PEEKK ONE.
Approach control turned one of the planes in front of us to a "base" leg and then gave them the choice of runway 16L or R (there apparently weren't any arrivals coming in from the east at that time). As it happens, they chose 16R. As soon as they made their choice, the controller cleared them for a visual approach to 16R. The next plane also chose the right, and after confirming he had the traffic in front of him was also cleared for a visual approach to 16R. Our pilot chose 16L, and was similarly cleared for a visual approach, as, ultimately, was the plane behind us. The plane behind us was warned they were following a Boeing 757, but ATC never asked if our "trailer" had us in sight.
Here is what I don't understand: at no time did the controller ever ask anybody if they had the airport in sight. I thought that a visual approach REQUIRED that a pilot have the airport in sight OR have the traffic in front of them that was flying a visual approach in sight? Only one of the planes was asked if they had traffic in sight, and at least two of the planes were cleared for the visual approach without reporting (or being asked if) they had the airport in sight.
What am I misunderstanding about visual approach clearances?
-M.