Narrative:

Giving line check to crew and observed this approach. The WX was reported VFR with a solid overcast around 3000 ft. Atl approach control asked if crew saw aircraft ahead. Crew indicated they did and was automatically given a visual clearance to follow that aircraft for runway 8L. The WX was clear above the overcast and the crew was between 6000-5000 ft turning to final from base. Approach was clearing everyone the same way and running parallel approach. As traffic entered the overcast, pilots were declaring the loss of visual on their traffic. This observed crew also correctly declared their loss visual with the traffic. This is all legal according to am 03-14 and company operations specifications. If the radio had been busier as they generally are in atl, it would be difficult to declare this loss of visual as required in the FARS -- almost impossible at times. Then what does a crew do? Why accept or give a visual on traffic, if you know that it can't be followed throughout the approach to landing? This is not a safe operation for a busy airport with parallel approachs and pushes limits of legality. Suggestions: change am 03-14 to read that traffic must be kept in sight during approach to landing in order to accept a 'follow traffic visually' for approach clearance. Change ATC procedures for visual clrncs to follow traffic can only be given for approachs if it is VFR from the point of visual clearance to touchdown. Never above a broken/overcast sky condition.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC USE OF VISUAL SEPARATION SEQUENCING WHEN WX CONDITIONS PRECLUDE ITS USAGE.

Narrative: GIVING LINE CHK TO CREW AND OBSERVED THIS APCH. THE WX WAS RPTED VFR WITH A SOLID OVCST AROUND 3000 FT. ATL APCH CTL ASKED IF CREW SAW ACFT AHEAD. CREW INDICATED THEY DID AND WAS AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN A VISUAL CLRNC TO FOLLOW THAT ACFT FOR RWY 8L. THE WX WAS CLR ABOVE THE OVCST AND THE CREW WAS BTWN 6000-5000 FT TURNING TO FINAL FROM BASE. APCH WAS CLRING EVERYONE THE SAME WAY AND RUNNING PARALLEL APCH. AS TFC ENTERED THE OVCST, PLTS WERE DECLARING THE LOSS OF VISUAL ON THEIR TFC. THIS OBSERVED CREW ALSO CORRECTLY DECLARED THEIR LOSS VISUAL WITH THE TFC. THIS IS ALL LEGAL ACCORDING TO AM 03-14 AND COMPANY OPS SPECS. IF THE RADIO HAD BEEN BUSIER AS THEY GENERALLY ARE IN ATL, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DECLARE THIS LOSS OF VISUAL AS REQUIRED IN THE FARS -- ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE AT TIMES. THEN WHAT DOES A CREW DO? WHY ACCEPT OR GIVE A VISUAL ON TFC, IF YOU KNOW THAT IT CAN'T BE FOLLOWED THROUGHOUT THE APCH TO LNDG? THIS IS NOT A SAFE OP FOR A BUSY ARPT WITH PARALLEL APCHS AND PUSHES LIMITS OF LEGALITY. SUGGESTIONS: CHANGE AM 03-14 TO READ THAT TFC MUST BE KEPT IN SIGHT DURING APCH TO LNDG IN ORDER TO ACCEPT A 'FOLLOW TFC VISUALLY' FOR APCH CLRNC. CHANGE ATC PROCS FOR VISUAL CLRNCS TO FOLLOW TFC CAN ONLY BE GIVEN FOR APCHS IF IT IS VFR FROM THE POINT OF VISUAL CLRNC TO TOUCHDOWN. NEVER ABOVE A BROKEN/OVCST SKY CONDITION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.