OK, two peeves, having to do with visual approaches.
First, why are so many pilots tacking on "when it helps" reporting the airport in sight? Helps who? I don't get it. If I can immediately clear you for a visual approach, I will. If I can't I won't. Simple as that. Can't you just say "airport in sight"?
Second, what's wrong with actually saying "Airport in sight"? Lots of pilots out there saying "We have the field all the way" (or my real favorite, "field all the way when it helps". All the way to what? I've taken to asking pilots who say that, "Verify field in sight?" And trust me, if anything untoward ever happens, my bosses will bust my chops for accepting that as a report that you have the airport in sight.
Third (I know I said two peeves, but I'm on a roll) why do many pilots wait until I spew a whole bunch of approach clearance phraseology before reporting the airport in sight? The situation is this: ATIS reporting VFR weather, ILS and visual approaches to Runway 2 in use. Every aircraft that checks on landing I vector to the localizer. Then, I watch and wait, and timing it just right, I rattle off, "ABC666, 6 miles from DAFIX, turn left heading 050, maintain 3000 til established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 2 approach". The reply is "ABC666, field in sight". So I go back and say "ABC666, cleared visual approach". Can't we just eliminate the middle man, and report the field in sight, save me a little breath? And, to confuse me all the more, why are pilots intent on a visual approach clearance, yet pick up the intercept heading I gave them anyway, and fly the approach all the way to the runway? I mean, I understand flying a stabilized approach and all that, but why not just accept the instrument approach clearance?
Dog's on, I'm going to go watch TV.... :laugh: