AUS_ATC

QUESTION: What are your rules (FAR or Company) regarding accepting a Visual Approach Clearance with a speed to maintain until a specified fix that is located on the ILS Final Approach Course?

BACKGROUND: I recently cleared a FDX DC10 for a Visual Approach to RWY 36R here at MEM and then tagged the pilot with a 170 knot speed restriction until MCGHE. The DC10 driver did not see the traffic preceding traffic, so this speed assignment was to ensure proper spacing with the traffic that the DC10 was following.

My Air Traffic Manager, who has NEVER worked in a TRACON before, and has NEVER worked parallel finals before, was standing right behind me at the sector. He questioned the legality of me issuing a speed assignment to a fix for an aircraft that was "not tracking the localizer", but was issued a visual approach clearance.

The Shift Supervisor was directed to take care of this "problem" because the Air Traffic Manager didn't like my technique.

So... after 20 years of doing this job, I have some guy from the front office tell me that what we are all doing at the MEM TRACON is wrong, incorrect, illegal and unacceptable.

Can someone give me something that I can hang my hat on? I'm looking for specific FAR references or company policy. The specific runway was 36 Right... NO Outer Marker... DME fix identified by the ILS 36R Localizer DME... no other radials or navaids associated with this fix.

Also... should I/we/ATC be thinking differently about glass cockpit aircraft as opposed to the B727 drivers on this subject?

Thanks,

MEM_ATC

TipsyMcStagger

I'll take a stab at it...the UPS AOM states with regard to Visual Approaches; "When an instrument approach is available, radio navigation and other aids will be tuned, identified and raw data monitored to positively identify the airport and runway of intended landing."

The AIM states "If the pilot has the airport in sight but cannot see the aircraft to be followed, ATC may clear the aircraft for a visual approach; however, ATC retains both separation and wake vortex separation responsibility."

The connotation of a visual approach clearance is that the crew is absolved of all lateral, altitude and speed restrictions...but the above statement from the AIM obviously precludes this from being absolute.

I'm assuming FedEx procedures also require a crew operating on a visual approach clearance to tune the available instrument approach facility. If so, and since you know whether or not the instrument approach facility is in service (I'm assuming as a TRACON controller you'd be aware if an ILS were out-of-service), I would think you could argue to your boss that any crew who has accepted a Visual Approach clearance would have the proper radio aids tuned and should be able to identify the fix in your clearance.

I'm sure someone here will come up with something better, but that's the angle I'd take.

Hope this helps.

Tipsy

FDXer

When on a visual final, a more appropriate way to keep us at 170 knots is "maintain 170 kts until 5 mile final". Using an ILS fix while on a visual approach is not technically correct.

Booker

I think the above responses are both spot-on. The three airlines I've worked for all have had the requirement to have the most precise navaid (except RNAV) tuned for a visual approach. At the same time, I've always understood that if cleared for a visual, ATC can issue a speed restriction up to a 5-mile final, like FDXer writes. ATC generally knows they can give us fix-limited restrictions, however, because we have the info displayed, but I thought the 5-mile limit was more appropriate. What does your 7110.65 say about it?

MX727

First off, we all know exactly what you wanted with that clearance and will comply. Second, at other airports, when on a visual, we more typically get the "170 to 5 mile" clearance. Personally, I don't care how you phrase it. I'm just glad it wasn't one of our pilots that complaining.

ogogog

id say to the ATM get your headset and show me how, then sit back and enjoy the show

AUS_ATC

FDXer,

The phraseology that you suggested is actually used by some Controllers, and these MEM Controllers are now being told that this is incorrect. The reasoning? If ATC instructs a college educated, military trained, Flight Safety Certified professional Airbus driver to "maintain 170 knots until 5 mile final", he/she might confuse this point from the airport with 5 DME as measured on the localizer!

Yup. That's what our FAA leaders were telling us last week.

Of course, when I asked what would happen if I instructed the same pilot and/or flight crew to enter a 5 mile initial for runway 36R, all I got was a blank stare.

MEM_ATC

kronan

Don't sweat the little stuff. If I am on a visual to the rwy and you tell me to maintain 170 until....a named fix. If I know where that fix is, then I'm going to do it. And almost everywhere I fly, they do it the same way.
Yes, a 170 until 5 miles (statute miles or nautical miles?) is more appropriate to the situation but you've got to remain focused on the big picture.....which is whether you have effectively communicated a way to manage the traffic flow into the runway.

Personally, I prefer using a named fix, not as easy to mess up the spacing/flow. In the Airbus it is pretty easy to figure out how far you are from the runway so the 5 mile thing not too tough to do. But, in the 72 some math is going to pop up unless the ILS/DME matches up to the end of the rwy. And, math isn't always that easy to do on day 4 of the night hub turns.

Booker

Disregard.

schoolio

My airline also has us back up the visual with an instrument approach, which allows us to identify the fixes. I've also heard the "170 until 5 mile final".

And I can tell you that my MK I calibrated eyeball sees the same sight picture at 5 DME on the localizer as it does on a 5 mile final...in other words, it ain't that precise.