Charted or not a visual approach is a visual approach....close.

No, charted (or published) visual has many additional requirements.

One has to distinguish between the so called "charted visual approaches" and other visual approaches. For the former you definitely don't have to have airport in sight.

Or be following another aircraft and have that aircraft in sight.

No, charted (or published) visual has many additional requirements.

Weather wise, operational control tower, yada yada yada yada. Not the spirit of the question. Charted or "uncharted" visual approach the pilot does not have to have the airport in sight. They could have a preceding aircraft that is landing the same runway in sight and following as stated above. As I said, a visual approach is a visual approach.

Honestly I don't think anyone can give even an estimated guess on percentages. Approaches come down to not only weather, but airspace design. For example, at KLAS, 98% of our approaches are visual simply because we are VMC 364 days a year, and because of the terrain aircraft are usually close into the airport, even at high altitude allowing for easy sight of the field. However, go to LAX and you'll see that most of their approaches will be ILS because they are cleared about 30 - 40 miles out. RNAV (RNP) is catching on, but at a slow pace.

Sure we can... like you said, Vegas is beautiful year round. Duluth... lol... not so much. We do use the ILS often enough for me to make an educated guess on %, we even run ASR's for the "older" jets. Actually I'm surprised LAS doesn't use more ILS approaches, even in VMC.... doesn't the CLARR2 take you to the ILS 1R or L? LAX - 'nuff said. Those STARs guide the pilots right to the ILS, imho sequencing is easier when everyone is flying the same procedure. Since we're on the topic of approaches... is it only me that gets annoyed when pilots ask for vectors to final for a RNAV (GPS) approach. Might as well do a localizer approach for the same effect :(

I monitor traffic most evenings and weekends via my transceiver at FAJS (JHB) and most approaches are visual weather dependent. When traffic volumes are high in the mornings between 7 and 9am and evenings between 6 and 8pm most of the flights are vectored by radar until finals.

This question really boils down to - depends on operator and destination. If you are flying summer charters, you often fly into airports that dont even have ILS. Other airports have ILS approaches that really take time and fuel, so visual is so much easier and more convenient. Cleared direct Kilo Echo (OM), report runway in sight. Although the big difference between FAA and European controlling is, pilot has to ask for a visual over here.

Most times ATC asks the pilots if they would like the visual. Summer is great fun at FAJS as there are a lot of late afternoon thunderstorms, especialy when the airport becomes busiest around 5 pm with lots of buildup dodging and go arounds happening due to windshear and excessive crosswinds. Lots of complaints by pilots of tailwinds at minimums and all sorts of fun during the storms. The 800 can really climbout on a go around, what an amazing aircraft.

Dublin will almost always give you an ILS unless it's out of service, it's up to the pilot to request it if he wants a visual, VOR or CATII/III autolanding landing...

Sure we can... like you said, Vegas is beautiful year round. Duluth... lol... not so much. We do use the ILS often enough for me to make an educated guess on %, we even run ASR's for the "older" jets. Actually I'm surprised LAS doesn't use more ILS approaches, even in VMC.... doesn't the CLARR2 take you to the ILS 1R or L? LAX - 'nuff said. Those STARs guide the pilots right to the ILS, imho sequencing is easier when everyone is flying the same procedure. Since we're on the topic of approaches... is it only me that gets annoyed when pilots ask for vectors to final for a RNAV (GPS) approach. Might as well do a localizer approach for the same effect

Well actually our primary config is 25's and 19's and no, the CLARR2 doesn't go directly to 1..lol. Most of our STARs are designed to line up with 25L but, again because of our terrain, everything is funneled into a straight in or the downwind to 25. Coming from the northeast (GRNPA) you are likely to get the visual to 19. If coming from the west, you're placed on the downwind for 25L and given a visual from there. Coming from the southeast you'll likely be given vectors to join the 25L localizer then cleared for the visual to follow the downwind traffic turning in front.

Not the spirit of the question. Charted or "uncharted" visual approach the pilot does not have to have the airport in sight. They could have a preceding aircraft that is landing the same runway in sight and following as stated above. As I said, a visual approach is a visual approach.

They could have a preceding aircraft in sight but what if there is NO aircraft in front of you. Then you MUST have airport in sight, unless you fly a charted visual approach so it is very much in the spirit of the question. So no, visual approaches are not created equal, if you never heard about it - time to learn.

Yeah, Micheal, I'm sure you're going to teach a Local controller a thing or two about visual approaches...

Well actually our primary config is 25's and 19's and no, the CLARR2 doesn't go directly to 1..lol. Most of our STARs are designed to line up with 25L but, again because of our terrain, everything is funneled into a straight in or the downwind to 25. Coming from the northeast (GRNPA) you are likely to get the visual to 19. If coming from the west, you're placed on the downwind for 25L and given a visual from there. Coming from the southeast you'll likely be given vectors to join the 25L localizer then cleared for the visual to follow the downwind traffic turning in front.

Bah it was only a guess... it must have been another STAR I was thinking about. The only RW experience I have on the pilot side of the mic is in MN and ND. I've only got vatsim experience flying elsewhere pfff!

you MUST have airport in sight, unless you fly a charted visual approach

Flat. Out. Wrong.

Flat. Out. Wrong.

For those of you squashing Michael on this, it would be nice if you were to refer to actual regulations and/or official guidance on the matter (perhaps from the FAA). My read of the Aeronautical Information Manual, section 5-4-52, seems consistent with what Michael (and others) is saying. I realize that the AIM is not regulatory, but it is at least guidance that is consistent with regulations.

Well, I'm not a RW controller nor a RW pilot, just a simple serious flight simmer But I'm going to trust Jeremy, given that he's a RW controller in KLAS........... And then, about this kind of approach , using a lot of good sense and a lot of official and unofficial documentation here in Italy, it's all in the word "visual". You must have the "aerodrome" and runway in sight. Without "seeing" the aerodrome and runways environment simply it's not a visual. Following the aircraft in front of You without seeing the AD, relying only on it and charts, shouldn't be a visual. It simply is 100% unsafe. What happens if the aircraft in front of You is wrong in the descent pattern or is flying in an erroneus direction? You are the pilot responsible for your AC and passengers, so You must "see" where are You going. Just good sense.