A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an IAP. Also, there is no missed approach segment. An aircraft unable to complete a visual approach must be handled as any other go-around and appropriate separation must be provided. A vector for a visual approach may be initiated by ATC if the reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the visibility is 3 SM or greater. At airports without weather reporting service, there must be reasonable assurance through area weather reports and PIREPs that descent and approach to the airport can be made visually, and the pilot must be informed that weather information is not available.

The visual approach clearance is issued to expedite the flow of traffic to an airport. It is authorized when the ceiling is reported or expected to be at least 1,000 feet AGL and the visibility is at least 3 SM. Pilots must remain clear of the clouds at all times while conducting a visual approach. At an airport with a control tower, pilots may be cleared to fly a visual approach to one runway while others are conducting VFR or IFR approaches to another parallel, intersecting, or converging runway. Also, when radar service is provided, it is automatically terminated when the controller advises pilots to change to the tower or advisory frequency. While conducting a visual approach, the pilot is responsible for providing safe obstacle clearance.

If conditions permit, pilots can request a contact approach, which is then authorized by the controller. A contact approach cannot be initiated by ATC. This procedure may be used instead of the published procedure to expedite arrival, as long as the airport has a SIAP the reported ground visibility is at least 1 SM, and pilots are able to remain clear of clouds with at least one statute mile flight visibility throughout the approach. Some advantages of a contact approach are that it usually requires less time than the published instrument procedure, it allows pilots to retain the IFR clearance, and provides separation from IFR and SVFR traffic. On the other hand, obstruction clearances and VFR traffic avoidance becomes the pilot’s responsibility. Unless otherwise restricted, the pilot may find it necessary to descend, climb, or fly a circuitous route to the airport to maintain cloud clearance or terrain/ obstruction clearance.

The main differences between a visual approach and a contact approach are: a pilot must request a contact approach, while a visual approach may be assigned by ATC or requested by the pilot; and a contact approach may be approved with one mile visibility if the flight can remain clear of clouds, while a visual approach requires the pilot to have the airport in sight, or a preceding aircraft to be followed, and the ceiling must be at least 1,000 feet AGL with at least 3 SM visibility.

A charted visual flight procedure (CVFP) may be established at some airports with control towers for environmental or noise considerations, as well as when necessary for the safety and efficiency of air traffic operations. Designed primarily for turbojet aircraft, CVFPs depict prominent landmarks, courses, and recommended altitudes to specific runways. When pilots are flying the Roaring Fork Visual RWY 15, shown in Figure 4-35, mountains, rivers, and towns provide guidance to Aspen, Colorado’s Sardy Field instead of VORs, NDBs, and DME fixes.

Pilots must have a charted visual landmark or a preceding aircraft in sight, and weather must be at or above the published minimums before ATC will issue a CVFP clearance. ATC will clear pilots for a CVFP if the reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA, and the visibility is 3 SM or more, unless higher minimums are published for the particular CVFP. When accepting a clearance to follow traffic, the pilot is responsible for maintaining a safe altitude, approach interval and wake turbulence separation from other aircraft Pilots must advise ATC if unable at any point to continue a charted visual approach or if the pilot loses sight of the preceding aircraft.

Because of the complications with database coding, naming conventions were changed in January 2001 to accommodate all approaches using RNAV equipment into one classification which is RNAV. This classification includes both ground- based and satellite dependent systems. Eventually all approaches that use some type of RNAV will reflect RNAV in the approach title.

This changeover is being made to reflect two shifts in instrument approach technology. The first shift is the use of the RNP concept outlined in Chapter 1, Departure Procedures, in which a single performance standard concept is being implemented for departure/approach procedure design. Through the use of RNP, the underlying system of navigation may not be required, provided the aircraft can maintain the appropriate RNP standard. The second shift is advanced avionics systems, such as FMS, used by most airlines, needed a new navigation standard by which RNAV could be fully integrated into the instrument approach system.

An FMS uses multi-sensor navigation inputs to produce a composite position. Essentially, the FMS navigation function automatically blends or selects position sensors to compute aircraft position. Instrument approach charts and RNAV databases needed to change to reflect these issues. A complete discussion of airborne navigation databases is included in Chapter 6, Airborne Navigation Databases. Due to the multi- faceted nature of RNAV, new approach criteria have been developed to accommodate the design of RNAV instrument approaches. This includes criteria for terminal arrival areas (TAAs), RNAV basic approach criteria, and specific final approach criteria for different types of RNAV approaches.

The Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) provides a transition from the en route structure to the terminal environment with little required pilot/air traffic control interface for aircraft equipped with Area Navigation (RNAV) systems. TAAs provide minimum altitudes with standard obstacle clearance when operating within the TAA boundaries. TAAs are primarily used on RNAV approaches but may be used on an ILS approach when RNAV is the sole means for navigation to the IF; however, they are not normally used in areas of heavy concentration of air traffic. [Figure 4-36]

The basic design of the RNAV procedure underlying the TAA is normally the “T” design (also called the “Basic T”). The “T” design incorporates two IAFs plus a dual purpose IF/IAF that functions as both an intermediate fix and an initial approach fix. The T configuration continues from the IF/IAF to the FAF and then to the MAP. The two base leg IAFs are typically aligned in a straight-line perpendicular to the intermediate course connecting at the IF/IAF. A Hold-in-Lieu-of Procedure Turn (HILO) is anchored at the IF/IAF and depicted on U.S. Government publications using the “hold−in−lieu−of−PT” holding pattern symbol. When the HILO is necessary for course alignment and/or descent, the dual purpose IF/IAF serves as an IAF during the entry into the pattern. Following entry into the HILO pattern and when flying a route or sector labeled “NoPT,” the dual-purpose fix serves as an IF, marking the beginning of the Intermediate Segment.

The standard TAA based on the “T” design consists of three areas defined by the IAF legs and the intermediate segment course beginning at the IF/IAF. These areas are called the straight−in, left−base, and right−base areas. [Figure 4-36] TAA area lateral boundaries are identified by magnetic courses TO the IF/IAF. The straight−in area can be further divided into pie−shaped sectors with the boundaries identified by magnetic courses TO the IF/ IAF, and may contain step-down sections defined by arcs based on RNAV distances from the IF/IAF.

Entry from the terminal area onto the procedure is normally accomplished via a no procedure turn (NoPT) routing or via a course reversal maneuver. The published procedure will be annotated “NoPT” to indicate when the course reversal is not authorized when flying within a particular TAA sector [Figures 4-36 and 4-37]. Otherwise, the pilot is expected to execute the course reversal under the provisions of 14 CFR § 91.175. The pilot may elect to use the course reversal pattern when it is not required by the procedure, but must receive clearance from air traffic control before beginning the procedure.

ATC should not clear an aircraft to the left base leg or right base leg IAF within a TAA at an intercept angle exceeding 90 degrees. Pilots must not execute the HILO course reversal when the sector or procedure segment is labeled “NoPT.”

ATC may clear aircraft direct to the fix labeled IF/IAF if the course to the IF/IAF is within the straight-in sector labeled “NoPT” and the intercept angle does not exceed 90 degrees. Pilots are expected to proceed direct to the IF/IAF and accomplish a straight-in approach. Do not execute HILO course reversal. Pilots are also expected to fly the straight−in approach when ATC provides radar vectors and monitoring to the IF/IAF and issues a“straight-in” approach clearance; otherwise, the pilot is expected to execute the HILO course reversal. (See AIM Paragraph 5−4−6, Approach Clearance)