Why be so quick to report "traffic in sight" ?

[TIS]

TIS,

I'm sure I don't grasp the whole "picture" here, but I'm curious why you'd feel less comfortable being, say 2 miles away from the guy on a parallel final and being able to see him, than you apparently would being 2 miles away and being solid IMC, which would also be quite legal. You've both got a localizer to track.

Well, first there's the simple concept of conducting a visual maneuver by following someone who ISN'T conducting a visual maneuver.

Then there's the fact that you're doing a visual approach based on having the preceding aircraft in sight - only he's not the preceding aircraft - at least not to YOUR runway.

And there's the fact that the guy doing the ILS thinks he's got IFR separation going for him but that separation is being provided, in part, by a guy maintaining visual separation from him.

Oh, and then there's the fact that most of the guys doing ILSs as a matter of course at LAX are foreign carriers - I'll leave it at that so I don't get in deeper than I already am.

It's just stacking a whole lot of cards in the shape of a house.

TIS

 

[Vector4fun]

Enigma,

Thanks, OK I understand about the side-step thing, and I try not to do that. I always ask if it becomes an option inside 20 miles. If the crew declines, I'll go to plan C.

I'm not sure I'm on the same page about the loss of visual though. While I've seen that happen, I've never seen anyone even suggest violating a crew unless they never reported losing visual, and something dangerous resulted. If you loose sight of the other aircraft and say so, it then becomes our job to re-establish standard separation. That might mean abandon the approach and go-around though.


TIS, this isn't meant to be argumentative, I'm trying to understand the problem better because we sometime find ourselve in a similar operation. Normally vis is not the problem here that is may be in LA though. We don't even try running visuals below about 6 miles surface vis. Nevertheless, It's possible the flight vis is lower.

Well, first there's the simple concept of conducting a visual maneuver by following someone who ISN'T conducting a visual maneuver.

I don't see how this is a problem. Unless your saying the guy ahead is going to follow the loc/gs into IMC conditions. I run practice ILS approaches every day, and almost any day the WX is suitable, there's a visual approach behind the practice ILS.

Then there's the fact that you're doing a visual approach based on having the preceding aircraft in sight - only he's not the preceding aircraft - at least not to YOUR runway.

All quite legal and "safe" according to the FAA and the 7110.65. You may disagree, but the controller is operating by the book. Your problem then is with the "book", and not the controller.

And there's the fact that the guy doing the ILS thinks he's got IFR separation going for him but that separation is being provided, in part, by a guy maintaining visual separation from him.

OK, I'll take this as a compliment. You'd prefer I provide separation than a fellow airline pilot. Even though I might be legal running 1 1/2 miles or even less under certain conditions on parallel ILSs.

Oh, and then there's the fact that most of the guys doing ILSs as a matter of course at LAX are foreign carriers - I'll leave it at that so I don't get in deeper than I already am.

Mmmmm, OK. I always kinda enjoyed working Lufthansa. Nice guys, brought us German beer.

It's just stacking a whole lot of cards in the shape of a house.

TIS

OK TIS, I understand, (I think), you're uncomfortable with some ATC procedures. I'm sure I don't know anyone who likes all of the 7110 any more than every paragraph of Parts 91, 135, and 121.

The flip side of that is that the controllers at NY, ORD, and LAX don't set the arrival rate. Flow control and the shift supervisor do. The controllers are then left to cram 5 lbs into a 4 lb bag. Refer back to ORD in 2000. A dozen controllers were given reprimands and a week or two on the beach for running 3 1/2 miles during a facility evaluation. (An evaluation that ORD had failed for something like the previous six times.) A controller at those places can't keep his job without running them as tight as the 7110 allows.

We can fix the whole problem just as soon as we get somebody to reduce the arrival rates at those airports, and/or those cities build some more runways and airports.

 

[EagleRJ]

I've seen SOCAL do that at LAX a few times, and I haven't had a problem with it procedurally. I thought it was done with a waiver, but I guess it's a normal procedure. The reason the preceding aircraft is on an ILS instead of a visual approach is probably only because it is a foreign carrier. SOCAL gives only ILS approaches to the foreign heavies now, because they've had too many of them head for the wrong runway, or even Hawthorne Municipal. When the vis is down in the LA Basin, the procedure also helps keep the final from getting longer and longer, since terrain limits the space ATC has to work with.

The problem I have with visual approaches given to smaller aircraft behind a heavy is when the controller uses it to take away your separation. Once you call the traffic in sight, you are given a speed that will close the gap, making room for more arrivals. Pretty soon, you're three miles or less behind the heavy, and a dot or more above the glideslope, hoping he puts it down on target so you can still land in the touchdown zone. It's just not worth it.
The next time they try to do that, I'll just hold the heavy at 5NM on the TCAS, and if ATC wants me to speed up, I'll accept either a sidestep or a missed. I'll do everything I can to help move things along, but not at the cost of safety!

 

[TIS]

Okay Vector, here's what happens at LAX

Like I said the aiport is VFR - might be 3 miles or it might be 6 but it's VFR. It's also about 1745L in late September - sun's goin' down and the runway is - ta da - 24R.

So your visibility is fine as you pass the airport on the high right downwind because you're lookin' straight down on it. But you're goin' 10 miles east to follow that foreign carrier I was talking about.

SOCAL turns you to 150° and points out the Lauda 767, or the Air China 747-400, or the Korean - 777, or Mexicana A-320 - not one of which is guaranteed to do what they're cleared to do. You're lookin' and as you're lookin' you realize that you're gonna need the ILS because that airport you just passed is now awash in a reddish brown haze that limits your vis to about 1.5 to 2 miles. But you can see that guy goin' for the left, by gum, and you say so.

Next thing you know you're stuck doing a technically legal visual maneuver based on someone else who's doing a strictly IFR procedure for ALL the right reasons. Can you make it work? Sure you can. Is it a good idea? Well that depends on a lot of things that the PIC may or may not have control over.

And that's my point. While that may seem Kosher to you, it's not with me. It's bending and twisting the rules to make things work and the more you do that the thinner the safety margin becomes. As you said five pounds into the four pound bag, only in LAX it's more like ten pounds into the two pounder.

TIS

 

[Bernoulli]

Like I said the aiport is VFR - might be 3 miles or it might be 6 but it's VFR. It's also about 1745L in late September - sun's goin' down and the runway is - ta da - 24R.

So your visibility is fine as you pass the airport on the high right downwind because you're lookin' straight down on it. But you're goin' 10 miles east to follow that foreign carrier I was talking about.

SOCAL turns you to 150° and points out the Lauda 767, or the Air China 747-400, or the Korean - 777, or Mexicana A-320 - not one of which is guaranteed to do what they're cleared to do. You're lookin' and as you're lookin' you realize that you're gonna need the ILS because that airport you just passed is now awash in a reddish brown haze that limits your vis to about 1.5 to 2 miles. But you can see that guy goin' for the left, by gum, and you say so.

Next thing you know you're stuck doing a technically legal visual maneuver based on someone else who's doing a strictly IFR procedure for ALL the right reasons. Can you make it work? Sure you can. Is it a good idea? Well that depends on a lot of things that the PIC may or may not have control over.

And that's my point. While that may seem Kosher to you, it's not with me. It's bending and twisting the rules to make things work and the more you do that the thinner the safety margin becomes. As you said five pounds into the four pound bag, only in LAX it's more like ten pounds into the two pounder.

TIS

My understanding of a visual approach is that ATC may issue you a visual approach clearance but you do not have to accept it... can't you simply say yeah we have the guy in sight but negative for the visual... request the ILS. Also... On initial contact with approach can you not let them know you are negative for a visual approach when you suspect that they will do what you just described?

 

[TIS]

My understanding of a visual approach is that ATC may issue you a visual approach clearance but you do not have to accept it... can't you simply say yeah we have the guy in sight but negative for the visual... request the ILS.

Not if you don't want to get jerked out of line. They're setting YOU up for a visual approach because they know which guys can and will handle it and which ones can't. They're counting on you to play along with them - it's how they get it all done in time for a coffee break.

They can't clear you for an ILS on the spot because they either don't have the lateral or the in-trail separation.

No, the parade into LAX must keep moving. You can't imagine what a stir even a single go-around causes. The easiest thing to do is NOT report the big guy in sight. that way they have nothing to base the visual approach clearance on.

Also... On initial contact with approach can you not let them know you are negative for a visual approach when you suspect that they will do what you just described?

Again, not if you want to be well liked at LAX. Play their game or else.

I just find it interesting that when we, as pilots, start stretching our operating practices to their limits it's interpreted as "Careless or Reckless operation" but when the FAA does it it's called "enhancing the flow of traffic."

TIS

 

[say again]

The next time they try to do that, I'll just hold the heavy at 5NM on the TCAS, and if ATC wants me to speed up, I'll accept either a sidestep or a missed. I'll do everything I can to help move things along, but not at the cost of safety!

That's exactly how I do it. I'll keep my speed up for as long as I can, then slow her up a necessary to keep my distance. ATC is usaully pretty good a keeping the seperation, but sometimes they drop the ball. We're all professionals and should know how to cope with these situations when they arise. I get sick of hearing pilots b!tch and moan (while flying) about the sh!tty vectors, not enough sep. etc. Deal with it because things certainly aren't going to change. If you do not like it, go-around and come back. There's no use in complaining and forcing something that may turn dangerous.

 

[Vector4fun]

TIS,


Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been at work.

I can't speak to specifics at SoCal, I don't work there. Having said that, I know from having worked similar situations many times that there may be several mis-conceptions at work here. I won't get into all the details here, but suffice to say there are rules and procedures for parallel visual approaches, rules and procedures for parallel ILS approaches, and rules and facility SOP for ILS turn-ons. The rules don't change from day to day, but they do depend on the facility configuration and equipment in use at the time. In other words, a facility may not be set up at the moment for reduced separation ILS approaches. Requires extra controllers and scopes up and running. If visuals have been "working" for the most part, the facility may not have those sectors open at the moment. (If the WX is VFR, those controllers are probably at a satellite position, or somewhere else besides the breakroom...)


When the controllers are anticipating using visual approaches, they may not be feeding the finals in the same way they would for ILSs. So you get turned on a "base" and the controller points out a heavy on the parallel final and asks "can you see him?". You say "sure" everything works as planned. (and, as a side-note, from a controller's perspective, what could be easier to see than a B747???) If you don't see him, there may not be spacing or adequate vertical separation for a legal ILS turn-on for you.

At my facility, I can legally vector you toward the parallel final side by side with the heavy doing an ILS so long as you have visual with the heavy or your runway in sight for a visual. If you don't see the runway or the heavy, I now have to turn you on final 3-5 miles and/or 1000' from the heavy, and after you've gotten reasonably established, I can then reduce that separation to a lower value, again depending on equipment and tracon set-up at the time. But what if I've already got two or three more on the straight-in set up to follow you? I can't widen your base to maintain legal separation with the heavy without causing a conflict with the folks following you. Had I been planning an ILS turn on to begin with, I either wouldn't have tried to squeeze you into that hole, or I'd have built in more separation to begin with.

So, what I'm saying is that I've seen a situation very similar to what you've described many times, and if you don't report the heavy in sight, I will break you out from the base and re-sequence you for the ILS. It won't be "punishment" for not "playing ball". It will because there is no other legal option available. And I might even sound a bit testy at having my original sequence go to crap. If so, I apologize.

Having said all that, I have absolutely no problem with a crew that straight up asks for the ILS 30 miles out. I'll plan my sequence and spacing accordingly. Therefore I'm suggesting that if LAX is advertising visuals, and you don't ask for an ILS early, you *might* be contributing to the problem. It happens as I just described at lots of places. Nobody is "punishing" a crew that wants an ILS, but it requires more separation for the turn-on in many cases, and you might have to go three or more slots further back in the sequence to get that separation.

And, by the way TIS, I'll get my coffee break when it's my turn, whether you're short final or still on downwind 30 east....

 

[TIS]

We've reached the point of know return. I understand what you're saying. At LAX it's a local culture thing. Those who play there all the time know what I'm talking about. It's simply not as cut and dried as the 7110.65 says it should be, though I'm sure everything's legal 99.9% of the time. I just don't like the construct - but I guess it hasn't caused an accident yet. I know for a fact that ASRS used to do alert bulletins with the FAA nearly EVERY week on it though and anything that causes that kind of notice isn't working quite right.

Anyhow, can I change the subject? What control panel are you using at the moment? Are you still on ASR9 or do you have a newer one? I'd like to learn the weather depiction capabilities of the latest generation of ATC set and I basically need a handbook. Can you shed any light?

TIS

 

[Vector4fun]

My facility is using ASR-9 and also has the WSP system. We were a test facility for WSP. The MIT site is here:

http://www.ll.mit.edu/AviationWeather/WSP-flyer.html

If you google [WSP FAA] You'll get a bunch of info. A WX radar geek I is not.