Narrative:

On final to runway 16. While on a night visual to runway 16 at den, ATC kept asking me if we had traffic in sight which was on final to runway 16. We were on a right base and the first officer was flying. I saw the runway and the traffic, but only reported the runway in sight in light of the new change in part one, section 10 concerning night visual approaches. To me the new policy does not allow me to report traffic or accept a visual based only on traffic. Eventfully the controller cleared us for a visual but kept on asking if we had the traffic in sight. After his third or fourth try, I finally told him that we had a policy which did not allow me to call traffic, but again we see the runway. He mentioned something about lost separation and made us go around. We were flying at 170 KIAS as instructed. Landed uneventfully and called to tower chief after parking. He wanted to know why we didn't call the traffic and I wanted to know why we had been sent around. He told me that he had over 4 mi separation between us and the B757 in front. He also said that we wouldn't have been sent around if we had called the traffic. It seems to me that wake turbulence separation should be the same if we are visual or IFR. Discussed all of this with a chief in ord and he agreed with my judgement and said that maybe the new change is restrictive. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter states that the air carrier policy stands, but considers that with the aid of the chief pilot and related FAA personnel, that the policy will soon be revised to a less restrictive procedure. He states a concern over the implied difference between wake turbulence separation when 'cleared for a visual' when following sighted traffic and separation when remaining IMC. He points out that the air carrier is trying to say that by reporting traffic, the reporter aircraft has no obstacle clearance protection. More precisely gives up that protection provided by ATC while operating in IMC rules. He further states that he is confident that the policy will be changed to a more moderate one. He does not know, nor will he be involved in the wording of the modification.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: S80 CREW CONCERNED OVER NEW ACR POLICY OF NOT RPTING TFC ON APPROACHES EVEN WHEN REQUESTED BY TWR. THIS INCIDENT IN DEN RESULTED IN TWR DIRECTING A GO AROUND.

Narrative: ON FINAL TO RWY 16. WHILE ON A NIGHT VISUAL TO RWY 16 AT DEN, ATC KEPT ASKING ME IF WE HAD TFC IN SIGHT WHICH WAS ON FINAL TO RWY 16. WE WERE ON A R BASE AND THE FO WAS FLYING. I SAW THE RWY AND THE TFC, BUT ONLY RPTED THE RWY IN SIGHT IN LIGHT OF THE NEW CHANGE IN PART ONE, SECTION 10 CONCERNING NIGHT VISUAL APPROACHES. TO ME THE NEW POLICY DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO RPT TFC OR ACCEPT A VISUAL BASED ONLY ON TFC. EVENTFULLY THE CTLR CLRED US FOR A VISUAL BUT KEPT ON ASKING IF WE HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT. AFTER HIS THIRD OR FOURTH TRY, I FINALLY TOLD HIM THAT WE HAD A POLICY WHICH DID NOT ALLOW ME TO CALL TFC, BUT AGAIN WE SEE THE RWY. HE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT LOST SEPARATION AND MADE US GO AROUND. WE WERE FLYING AT 170 KIAS AS INSTRUCTED. LANDED UNEVENTFULLY AND CALLED TO TWR CHIEF AFTER PARKING. HE WANTED TO KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T CALL THE TFC AND I WANTED TO KNOW WHY WE HAD BEEN SENT AROUND. HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD OVER 4 MI SEPARATION BETWEEN US AND THE B757 IN FRONT. HE ALSO SAID THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SENT AROUND IF WE HAD CALLED THE TFC. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WAKE TURB SEPARATION SHOULD BE THE SAME IF WE ARE VISUAL OR IFR. DISCUSSED ALL OF THIS WITH A CHIEF IN ORD AND HE AGREED WITH MY JUDGEMENT AND SAID THAT MAYBE THE NEW CHANGE IS RESTRICTIVE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATES THAT THE ACR POLICY STANDS, BUT CONSIDERS THAT WITH THE AID OF THE CHIEF PLT AND RELATED FAA PERSONNEL, THAT THE POLICY WILL SOON BE REVISED TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE PROC. HE STATES A CONCERN OVER THE IMPLIED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WAKE TURB SEPARATION WHEN 'CLEARED FOR A VISUAL' WHEN FOLLOWING SIGHTED TFC AND SEPARATION WHEN REMAINING IMC. HE POINTS OUT THAT THE ACR IS TRYING TO SAY THAT BY RPTING TFC, THE RPTR ACFT HAS NO OBSTACLE CLRNC PROTECTION. MORE PRECISELY GIVES UP THAT PROTECTION PROVIDED BY ATC WHILE OPERATING IN IMC RULES. HE FURTHER STATES THAT HE IS CONFIDENT THAT THE POLICY WILL BE CHANGED TO A MORE MODERATE ONE. HE DOES NOT KNOW, NOR WILL HE BE INVOLVED IN THE WORDING OF THE MODIFICATION.

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.