A visual approach is not a change from IFR to VFR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The flight remains entirely under instrument flight rules and continues to be subject to air traffic control. The difference is that the pilot may depart from the published instrument approach procedure completely or partially and continue the approach with visual reference to the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This can, for example, shorten a long ILS or RNAV procedure if the weather and traffic conditions allow it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An IFR flight may be cleared for a visual approach if the pilot can maintain ground visibility and the weather conditions allow for a safe visual approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In principle, the reported main cloud threshold must be at least at the beginning of the initial approach segment. Alternatively, the aircraft can already be below the main cloud threshold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even during an instrument approach that has already begun, a visual approach can be switched to if the pilot determines that visual approach and landing are safe to perform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is noteworthy is that a visual approach is not necessarily limited to officially reported VMC. What is crucial is that the pilot can actually comply with the prescribed visual conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The pilot can actively request a visual approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The standard phraseology, for example, is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201eRequest visual approach runway 23.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With this request, the pilot simultaneously declares that the necessary conditions are met and that he can immediately begin the visual approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If it is already foreseeable that a visual approach may be possible later, a radar guidance for this can be requested first:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201eRequest vectors for visual approach runway 23.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the prerequisites are subsequently met, the pilot reports:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201eAble to accept visual approach runway 23.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The initiative does not have to come from the pilot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ATC can offer a visual approach to accelerate traffic, provided the weather conditions allow it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The pilot does not have to accept this offer. Especially on unfamiliar airfields, in difficult terrain or with high workload, the published instrument procedure may remain the more sensible option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With approval, the pilot confirms that the required visibility conditions are present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most important point of the entire regulation concerns the responsibility for terrain and obstacles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With the release for visual approach, the pilot assumes responsibility for obstacle clearance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This fundamentally distinguishes the visual approach from a published instrument approach procedure, whose flight path is designed under defined conditions with respect to obstacle clearance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anyone accepting a visual approach must therefore ensure that the chosen flight path is safe in relation to terrain, masts, towers and other obstacles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Especially at night, in unfamiliar terrain or with limited visibility, this point deserves special attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The acquisition of obstacle clearance does not mean that the pilot automatically assumes the responsibility for directing other IFR traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In principle, ATC continues to ensure the required staffing levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, on certain conditions, this responsibility can be transferred to the pilot on the day. A typical example would be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201eNumber two, follow Cessna at two o\u2019clock, maintain your own separation.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, the pilot must keep the traffic ahead of him in sight and ensure sufficient distance for himself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If the aircraft is guided for approach by radar vectors, ATC may only grant clearance for visual approach after the pilot has either reported the airport or the aircraft ahead in sight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This ensures that the transition from radar-assisted IFR guidance to the visual part of the approach is based on a clearly defined visual reference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A practically interesting possibility is a Runway Change during the final approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under the new regulations, such a change in course can only be made in conjunction with a visual approach if the appropriate visibility conditions are present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
ATC prescribes an individual abort procedure for the pilot in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is important because the originally published Missed Approach Procedure may no longer fit the current runway or flight path.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The pilot should therefore have clearly understood this individual procedure before accepting the approval.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Visual approaches are by no means always possible without restrictions in Germany.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Noise protection, local procedures and the location of surrounding towns lead to additional requirements at numerous airports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Frankfurt, for example, generally does not allow full visual approaches. Exceptions are approaches during final approach, even in conjunction with a runway change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similar restrictions exist in Munich and Leipzig, among other places.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Cologne\/Bonn and D\u00fcsseldorf, visual approaches are generally severely restricted, but propeller-driven aircraft weighing up to 5.7 tons are partially exempt from these restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At some airports, a certain final approach must be followed despite visual approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At BER, this is generally at least six nautical miles. Below 2,000 feet MSL, the aircraft may only be descended after reaching the final approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Hamburg, depending on the aircraft mass, there are at least four or seven nautical miles of final approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Stuttgart, visual approaches are only permitted for aircraft weighing up to 5.7 tons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Monchengladbach also has a special regulation: For aircraft weighing over 5.7 tons, the final approach must be at least four nautical miles long.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, for typical light GA aircraft, this weight limit is significantly above the normal operating mass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another special feature concerns Radio Mandatory Zones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In an area where radio communication is mandatory, no clearance for a visual approach should be granted in principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is especially relevant for smaller IFR airfields where there is no classic control zone but an RMZ has been established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Local restrictions may not apply in certain situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These include, for example, an unplanned failure of a navigation aid or the unavailability of all instrument approach procedures for a runway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even significant weather conditions such as a thunderstorm in the approach area can justify an exception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In such situations, a visual approach can be an important operational alternative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, a technical failure does not mean that it is permissible to fly directly to the runway at any time. In the event of the instrument approach procedures being unavailable, the visual final approach must not begin closer to the runway than the beginning of the final approach segment of the corresponding published procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For general aviation, a visual approach can bring significant advantages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A pilot does not necessarily have to fly a long instrument approach completely, although the airfield is already clearly visible early on. This saves flight time, fuel and reduces the workload in some cases as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The price for this, however, is a different distribution of responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After the release, the pilot can no longer rely on the obstacle clearance to ensure that his flight path is protected within a published instrument procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Precisely for this reason, a visual approach should not be accepted solely because ATC offers it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The NfL 2026-1-4054 creates an updated framework for visual approaches in Germany.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most important principle remains simple: the flight remains IFR, but the approach navigation is partially performed visually. With the clearance, the pilot assumes responsibility for obstacle clearance, while ATC generally continues to ensure the separation from other traffic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Special attention deserves radar vectors, runway changes, and the numerous local restrictions at German airports.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In good weather and on familiar terrain, the visual approach is an extremely efficient IFR procedure. However, it should only be accepted if the pilot can safely assess the airfield, terrain, and the remaining flight path.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n