OnCourse Software

dmarch wrote:

According to my real world advisor there are many reasons why you could not request a visual approach... one of which is you must have to have the airport in sight, you couldn't request a visual approach and then expect ATC to vector you into a position where you are aligned with the runway. It wouldn't happen

Dave,

I think there is a misunderstanding about my request. Probably my fault, English is not my native language.
I'll go inside to better explain.
During a flight PF3 gives me a vector approach for a given runway.

-First case: the track has an "ILS". PF3 leads me to a difference of about 30 ° from the locator under the glide then asks me to contact the tower when established on the "ILS". PF3 does the job. It's fine.

-Second case (my request): the track has no ILS, no VOR and so ... like in the first case PF3 leads me to a difference of about 30 ° from the runway axis.
Example: runway 28, the aircraft is to the left of the axis. PF3 gives me heading 310 to intercept the axis. It's correct.
At this point PF3 says me "[Callsign] Cleared to final for runway 28, contact tower on 122.1 when established. The problem is that the runway is not always in sight at this time.

Now my request please if possible, would be that PF3 after giving me the heading 310 as in the previous example, gives me the cap + -280 at the right time when the aircraft is in alignment with the runway and then transfer me to the tower.

Btw I'm not asking for a precision approach (PAR)...Just the last correct heading to finish with the runway in sight.

Thank you in advance,

Regards,

Richard Portier

drumsart wrote:

dmarch wrote:

According to my real world advisor there are many reasons why you could not request a visual approach... one of which is you must have to have the airport in sight, you couldn't request a visual approach and then expect ATC to vector you into a position where you are aligned with the runway. It wouldn't happen

Dave,

I think there is a misunderstanding about my request. Probably my fault, English is not my native language.
I'll go inside to better explain.
During a flight PF3 gives me a vector approach for a given runway.

-First case: the track has an "ILS". PF3 leads me to a difference of about 30 ° from the locator under the glide then asks me to contact the tower when established on the "ILS". PF3 does the job. It's fine.

-Second case (my request): the track has no ILS, no VOR and so ... like in the first case PF3 leads me to a difference of about 30 ° from the runway axis.
Example: runway 28, the aircraft is to the left of the axis. PF3 gives me heading 310 to intercept the axis. It's correct.
At this point PF3 says me "[Callsign] Cleared to final for runway 28, contact tower on 122.1 when established. The problem is that the runway is not always in sight at this time.

Now my request please if possible, would be that PF3 after giving me the heading 310 as in the previous example, gives me the cap + -280 at the right time when the aircraft is in alignment with the runway and then transfer me to the tower.

Btw I'm not asking for a precision approach (PAR)...Just the last correct heading to finish with the runway in sight.

Thank you in advance,

Regards,

Richard Portier

Hi Richard,
First PF3 has to have the terminology correct in the voices. Currently the only one I can see is "Vectors for the visual". So at the very least in order to comply with both FAA and ICAO there will have to a be lot of cutting and pasting to get the phraseology correct. for example for ICAO>
"Callsign level at 3,000, runway in sight request visual approach"--"Callsign Roger, cleared visual approach no.1 contact Tower on 118.7" So those three words would all have to be cut and pasted individually.
Secondly just because you ask is no guarantee that PF3 would comply. PF3 has to have to option to say "negative!" To stop people asking for a visual approach when clearly they are not allowed. It has to ask itself all these questions.
1. Is the fpl IFR?
2. Does the landing runway have ILS?
3. Is the user a/c close to or at FAF altitude?
4. Is the user still talking to approach?
5. Is the weather CAVOK minimum at the airfield and at a/c location?
6. Is it official daylight?
If the answer to any of those questions is No, then PF3 must reply "Negative" to your request. I agree that any kind of addition to PF3 of this nature would enhance it further and I'm sure Dave will put it somewhere on his list as his stated intention is to make it the best ATC programme. That said I expect that if it is added it won't be tomorrow!