Go-around Procedures UK

[Oxford1G]

Could any one out there in the world of ATC answer the following.

If I am on an IFR flight plan flying into say Gatwick, I have just been cleared for an ILS, and I request a visual contact approach, ATC then clear me for that approach. If I were to carry out a go-around, would you still expect me to carry out a go-around for the ILS approach, or would you expect me to carry out a go-around into a visual circuit?

:confused:

[Spitoon]

In the UK there's no such thing as a visual contact approach (not in the civil world anyway). We can clear you for a visual approach but you're still under IFR (i.e you get separated from other IFR or SVFR traffic) so I would expect you to follow the published missed approach if you go-around. If you want to go-around in order to reposition visually you could possibly negotiate this with ATC.

The only tricky one is where you are pointing away from the final approach track when the missed approach may not be convenient - again you might negotiating something that is more flyable. (PS - this probably isn't going to win you lots of friends in ATC!)

[deadhead]

Interesting question. In NZ, if the aircraft says "XYZ going-around" that means into the circuit. If the aircraft says "XYZ commencing missed approach, climbing to (missed approach altitude)" that means what it says. If conditions are below circling minima (or other minima that may be peculiar to that ATC unit) the missed approach will be protected so there will be no issue there. If conditions are above circling minima ATC may require a visual circuit to be flown, but that is another story.

So it depends on what call the pilot makes as to what ATC will expect.

[vector4fun]

In the U.S., there are two possible scenarios. If you are literally speaking of a Contact Approach, as it's defined here, then ATC should/would give you an alternate IFR procedure to fly on the miss. True Contact approaches are rare though

If you were speaking of a Visual Approach, then there is NO missed approach segment, and you would be treated as a visual go-around, unless there were extenuating circumstances.

[DFC]

Popup,

What you have experienced is the result of the UK CAA allowing training for JAA licences in the USA without suficient oversight.

Thus we now have the situation where US flight instructors who have no knowledge of European procedures use local US procedures while teaching UK pilots for flight in UK airspace.

We now have lots of UK licence holders using US operating procedures in the UK such as;

Contact Approach

45 degree join downwind

Constantly calling "XYZ Traffic" when joining at an A/G field

Talking about tower zones at airfields with no ATC.

IMHO, such confusion should be addressed by asking the CAA directly why a UK registered aircraft asked for a non-UK and non-ICAO type of approach.

Armed with the facts, then perhaps the CAA can make an appropriate judgement.

Rant Mode Off

Regards,

DFC

[av8boy]

What you have experienced is the result of the UK CAA allowing training for JAA licences in the USA without suficient oversight.
Thus we now have the situation where US flight instructors who have no knowledge of European procedures use local US procedures while teaching UK pilots for flight in UK airspace.
Am I missing something? Is that UK student in the US seeking flight instruction under a US instructor and certification as a pilot by the FAA? No, really... I'm asking. I might be unaware of the deal here. If he or she is in the US to get a US ticket, then the aeronautical knowledge portions of Part 61 seem pretty clear: this applicant has to have specific knowledge regarding the US system. US flight instructors have to have knowledge of the US procedures. Whether they have knowledge of European procedures or not is immaterial to the student getting the US ticket.

That having been said, I'm open to becoming educated on this subject. Are there instructors in the US who are also certified by the CAA to do something in particular as far as additional, Euro-centric instruction? Are they failing in that regard? If there is nothing which requires US instructors to teach European procedures to specific students, isn't it a bit much to browbeat them for failing to do so? IMHO, absent specific requirements, I would think it would be sufficient for a US instructor to mention to a UK student that "I think this might be done differently outside of the US, but I don't know for sure." Granted, a student needs to have information and training appropriate to the environment in which he or she intends to fly. But in a case like this one, if the US instructor is teaching as he or she is required to teach under the rules of the certifying authority, I don't see how you could ask for more. If the CAA has dropped the ball, blame them. If the student doesn't care enough to seek out the info he or she needs to be safe, deny certification. Yes, I understand the part about allowing traiing "without suficient oversight." What I don't buy, however, is that US instructors are "teaching UK pilots for flight in UK airspace."

What am I missing?

Dave :confused:

[tired]

err, Av8boy, you need to read your own postings a bit more carefully. :) That bit you "copy and pasted" was talking about JAA licenses, not FAA licenses - slight difference. I think you'll find that the guys are referring to the the flightschools in the USA that are licensed by the JAA/CAA or whoever does these things these days, to teach the JAA syllabus in order to gain a JAA license. In which case I would have thought it right and proper that they teach JAA procedures, not FAA ones. (Yes, yes, yes, I know that the student would also have to know FAA procedures becasue they're flying in US airspace - the point is that if the school takes their money and promises to teach to the JAA syllabus, then that's what they should do, even if it means teaching 2 sets of procedures.)

etc etc etc :) :)

[av8boy]

Thanks. Exactly what I was asking.

BTW, I did read my own post. What I was unclear about was the meaning of "training for JAA licences in the USA." What this turned on for me was whether "training for JAA licences in the USA" meant getting a US ticket that was redeemable for a JAA ticket, or whether this was a unique sort of thing.

I'm not completely daft. Hell. I wasn't even drinking!

Dave

[FlyingForFun]

Sorry, but I'd disagree.

To pick up on one particular point (although the same argument applies to all of the points made): the 45-degree join to downwind.

Do you really expect instructors in the US to teach students to fly overhead joins at American airfields? Where every other pilot is doing a 45-degree join? Of course not - it would be bl00dy dangerous! Doesn't matter what license you have, or are training for, you need to follow the rules and conventions in the country you're flying in. It might be worth a mention in ground-school that certain things are done differently in the UK, especially since it is known that the pilot will be using his license in the UK, but that's about all you can do. Then, when the newly-qualified pilot returns home, he should spend a short while with a UK-based instructor covering any differences.

I trained in the UK. Shortly after I got my PPL, I did some hour-building in the US - the same story, but the other way around. The instructors at my school in the US made sure I was aware of all the local conventions (45-degree joins, Unicom frequencies, different requirements for entering Class D airspace, probably lots of other stuff that slips my mind) before they let me loose.

Since the original question relates to commercial flights, the pilots concerned obviously may not have had a chance to fly with an instructor in the airpsace they're flying into, which makes things slightly difficult. Not sure what the solution is, but I'm sure that DFC is looking in the wrong place. Sorry, DFC! ;)

FFF
---------------

[ILS 119.5]

I would ask the pilot if he/she would like a visual circuit or vectors for a further ILS which can be done quickly over the R/T. If vectors are required, which is quite often the case then a quick co-ordination with the radar controller would be required. I do not think that std missed approaches are appropriate for most go arounds.

[LateLandingClearance]

I would hope that any controller worth their salt would, on hearing the aircraft announce it's go-around, come back after a suitable time to issue instructions of what is required.

i.e. a/c calls going around - controller responds "roger, climb straight ahead, maintain 3000ft".

Fair enough, it's only telling the pilot (in an IFR missed approach situation) what he already knows and has briefed, but a small reminder at a busy time saves the crew having the extra worry of what you are expecting of them. Also removes the uncertainty from the original scenario where Oxford1G would be wondering what to do (not meaning to single you out as someone that wouldn't be prepared for this Oxford ;) :) )

When all's said and done, I'd go back to an ATC often used phrase - I'd rather you asked me if you were unsure of what I want you to do, rather than assuming or guessing something - we really don't mind as it's in everyones interest :)

Similarly to popup, I've never heard of a visual contact approach and if a pilot mentioned it to me, I'd not know what to expect from him or what he was expecting from me :oh: Not a nice situation to be in. :\

[Oxford1G]

Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thank you all very much for you words of help and wisdom.

I asked the question, simply to get a clearer unstanding from ATC's view point. It is rare these days, because of the aircraft we operate, and the airports we fly into, to be offered a visual approach. However, if offered it is most important that we all understand the different go-around procedures and how a go-around from a visual approach differs depending in what part of the world we are operating in. May be this is one for ICAO to look at?

Thanks :ok:

[deadhead]

Oxford, you are quite right. ICAO should do something about it, but they won’t unless someone tells them. The relevant parts of ICAO document No 4444, PANS-ATM “Procedures for Air Traffic Management” are reproduced below:

12.3.4.18 MISSED APPROACH
a) GO AROUND;
*b) GOING AROUND.
* Denotes pilot transmission.

This is from the “visual” section.

Now from the IFR section:

12.4.2.5.8 MISSED APPROACH
a) CONTINUE VISUALLY OR GO AROUND [missed approach
instructions];
b) GO AROUND IMMEDIATELY [missed approach instructions]
(reason);
c) ARE YOU GOING AROUND?;
d) IF GOING AROUND (appropriate instructions);
*e) GOING AROUND.
* Denotes pilot transmission.

Note the pilot transmissions by the "*".

NZ does not use this second phrase, instead pilots will say: "commencing missed approach, climbing to (missed approach altitude). Strictly speaking, the "commencing missed approach" bit is non-standard, but the altitude climbing to MUST be reported when going around if you intend to carry out the published missed approach procedure. This saves the guesswork and additional RTF time ascertaining intentions. Any separation minima applied by a tower controller (apart from runway separation) can only be in a vertical sense so that is why the altitude must be reported. At that time TWR can scream "NEGATIVE! Maintain xxxx" or whatever. Of course TWR can issue clearances to aircraft in the vicinity, but they in themselves aren't "separations" as no minima apply, apart from what I've already mentioned here. If I've forgotten something, I'm sure someone will remind me.

In any case if ICAO use this (or at least a DIFFERENT) phraseology then there wouldn't be confusion, you guys wouldn't have wasted time trying to define a "visual contact" approach, whatever the hell that is, and there would be no need to "negotiate a deal with ATC," as someone else here suggested. Of course that never happens in the real world ...

[Scott Voigt]

Hey...

This sounds great to me, if we can't get our procedures and phraseology into ICAO, we will just train everyone to the way that we do it and set them loose on all of you <G>...

regards

Scott