Visual Approach IFR Cancellation

joecoolinsc Rookie Spartanburg, SC

Yes, the tower can provide visual separation. But it must be approved by the IFR facility via LOA, SOP or specific coordination.

strangleparrot Newcomer

It seems that we all agree that the aircraft will enter the tower downwind unless otherwise instructed. I guess my question is this: Do I have to get an IFR cancellation before the aircraft turns downwind? Excuse me "BigRexxy81?" ALL THE RADAR FOLKS?! Heres your reference.

80t-112
"Authorization to conduct a visual approach is an IFR
authorization and does not alter IFR flight plan cancellation
responsibility."


Frum muh Noggin

Tower can apply visual seperation with der eyez. Depending on the disgruntled APP controller they may have a different take on it. If you want to sep muh airplanes fo me, dats koo. One team one dream. Now if you can just show up to wrok tomorrow on time and sober we can discuss this further.

Crash says you suck

bigrex81 Rookie Oak Harbor, WA

I already quoted that same phrase from the AIM in the original post. And thats our problem then is disgruntled APP controllers Tell Crash to get a haircut.

Headquarters_Weenie Newcomer

There is a lot of confusion in this area, and justly so. Currently, there is no real guidance for what to do in instances like this. We at HQ are currently in the middle of a Terminal re-write of the .65. (And no, it's not just us HQ weenies making stuff up in our own little bubble. We have most of the major facility chiefs here helping out) Anyway, we're going around on this issue as we speak. Someone has already posted the pertinent paragraphs from the AIM and AIP in this thread, and that is about as good a guidance as there is currently. There are no set, specific procedure's in .65 for dealing with this. And before anyone asks for something set in stone you have to ask yourself, do you really want us to do that? Really? We all know that there are a thousand different scenarios and a thousand different ways of dealing with this particular issue. Do you really want your flexibility taken away by having something written in stone?

This may be one of those areas best left gray and let the controller deal with it as they see fit under the provisions of 2-1-1. After all, that's why we're paid the big bucks, to keep planes apart

joecoolinsc Rookie Spartanburg, SC

HQ WEENIE,

Leaving grey as far as what to do makes sense as it will vary widely at different facilities.

But at minimum, a note should be added clearly stating the aircraft is IFR until it lands or cancels, and shall be separated as such.

This would end the argument of a magic automatic cancellation that comes up over and over.

Headquarters_Weenie Newcomer

Makes sense. Of course, since it makes sense, it'll probably take years to implement.

I'll see what can be done

MikeATC Retired FAA, NATCA Member Nashville TN

Headquarters Weenie,
NO WE DO NOT WANT NON CONTROLLERS OR MANAGEMENT individuals who never have worked traffic, or haven't worked airplanes in decades, making changes to the .65 without the involvement of those of us sitting in the towers, or buckled in on approach/departure scopes, etc. We know some of you may had been good controllers, but when was the last time you sat down and worked a busy session on Radar or on Local?

I won't disagree that some changes and updates to the .65 are needed, but it is important that any changes be well thought out, then well written, this can only be accomplished by involving active controllers. A lot of the changes that we have had to endure over the past few years have only served to make our jobs more difficult, it has begun to fell like "Safe and Efficient", has been tossed out the window and replaced with, "Cover your Ass".

Over the past 24 years I've seen a myraid of changes, some good, some not. But a major re-write should involve those some of us that are actively working traffic, and not just management individuals who haven't plugged into Local or approach in decades.

I'll add posting on here for suggestions is inappropriate since 99% of those on this web site are not air traffic controllers, but I do appreciate you trying to solict comments on the issue.

MikeATC Retired FAA, NATCA Member Nashville TN

NO! You do not have to get a cancellation of IFR from an IFR aircraft conducting a Visual Approach. What nomally occurs to a towered airport is that the aircraft is sequenced to the airport, which means they may be vectored to the base leg, downwind, or straight in final. At a non-towered airport I'll vector them to a point that they will be able to see the airport, once the pilot calls the airport in sight, I'll cancel his radar service, ask the pilot to report cancelling IFR, and switch them over to the advisory frequency. It is up to the pilot how he enters the local traffic pattern.

joecoolinsc Rookie Spartanburg, SC

Mike,

This is an aviation forum. Not just for butt in the chair controllers (which I'm proud to say I am). Maybe we should be glad Weenie is here...

Joe

Headquarters_Weenie Newcomer

Well, good day to you too.

First, so you know, I've been controlling a little longer than you, since 1984, so I'm not some rube pulled in off the streets to muck things up. The .65 Charlie was what I cut my teeth on.

Secondly, while the group that is involved in the re-write consist of 25-30 facility managers from some of the busiest facilities, we have also have managers from some of the smaller facilities working on this as well. In turn, they are returning to their facilities and forming groups to get their input as well. The re-write has been underway since Jan and we'll be lucky to get some of the changes in the T, so I don't think that qualifies as "rushed".

Third, what would the controller world be unless someone was bitchin'? No matter how hard we try, there's always going to be someone getting their pretty pink panties in a wad. No change is ever going to suit everyone. Some people are comfortable with the way we've done things for years and years. Some people just plain don't like change. What can I say?

As far as soliciting on this site, far from it. I read here and post little, because I'm a firm believer that it's hard to learn when you're runnin' yer yap. I also like to listen to imput from all sectors.

And contrary to what I think, I don't know everything. Almost everything, but not quite. So I like to hear as many interpretations as possible.

And you are correct in the "CYA" aspect of things. Unfortunately, due to the litigious aspects of our modern society, you do have to craft policy with that in mind. There's also the union positions to take into consideration as well.

Fun stuff