Missed apch: missed the moral of the story?

[MEL-able]

I am just wandering who is the NUT! Who makes the missed approach procedures and is there not any organisation that is concerned about SAFETY!?

Ok, let me start at the beginning:

A missed approach is a procedure that is pretty unusual and in the "dangerzone" (below msa).
It is a procedure, that takes the full attention of the pilots, with a lot of configuration changes.

Why, oh why are there so many missed approaches that are totally useless!

To build my case:
---------------------------------------------
example 1)

Palma de Mallorca, Spain. ILS-bravo rwy 24L:
ILS freq: 109:3 IPAL

Missed Apch: Climb STRAIGHT AHEAD to D2.0 SSJ, then climbing turn LEFT (MAX IAS 185) direct MJV VOR and join holding at 3000

Palma is on the coast. Straight ahead is only sea.....

A)Why is there a turningpoint given, based upon a radiobeacon not even used during the whole approach (SSJ 117:7), that has to be selected while we are still changing configurations?

B)Why is it not for every airport worldwide..
STRAIGHT AHEAD, CLIMB XXX FEET (where possible concerning terrain...)
Where not possible:
STRAIGHT AHEAD, 500 FT, TURN HEADING XXX, CLIMB XXX FEET.


---------------------------------------------
example 2)

Amsterdam, Schiphol, Netherlands

EVERY RUNWAY (5 runways IN TOTAL) HAS THE SAME MISSED APPROACH INSTRUCTION!

STRAIGHT AHEAD, 2000 FEET. INFORM ATC !!!!

(THANK YOU AMSTERDAM!)
---------------------------------------------

We are talking about SAFETY, STANDARISATION here, worldwide. NOISE ABATEMENT is NOT a factor that can be used to argue.

Am I so wrong in my believe to make it safer by making it easier?


I rest my case.

Greetings MEL :cool:

[Scott Voigt]

Can't speak to the islands <G>, but there is also a valid reason called traffic. Usually over here we design MAP's to miss terrain and work with the available navaids...

regards

[stop the climb]

Mel-able makes a very valid point. How many airfields are there where it would be unsafe to climb straight ahead to a safe level.
But then again how many SIDs and other procedures make safety and ease of use a priority.

[ 17 December 2001: Message edited by: stop the climb ]

[Warped Factor]

All the Heathrow missed approaches used to be SAH to 3,000ft then as directed by ATC.

Then there was a nasty incident and now they're all a bit more complicated.

WF.

[Gonzo]

Hi WF,

You'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't ;) to learn just how many crews climb straight ahead despite the published Missed Approach!

Gonzo.

[NextLeftAndCallGround]

A couple of thoughts to mention.

First MEL-able, although I understand the point of your post, I presume we're talking about a PT aeroplane - do you really fly an approach without having the aids that you'll need for a go-around set up and identified?

Generally the missed approach procedures are designed to get the aircraft somewhere safe and, if possible, out of the way of all the other routes in the area.

It may not be as important today but missed approaches used to be designed so that an aircraft with a radio failure is put into a position where another approach can be flown. So straight ahead (until when???) is not a very prudent procedure. Amsterdam (and Heathrow in days gone by it would seem) rely on very quick action from ATC - much as I think that ATC people are good and will do their best, do you really want to rely on ATC who may have something else occupying their minds sort you out?? (By the way - just because the controller isn't talking, it doesn't mean that they're not busy).

If you want standrdisation you can have 15 mile final approaches with 160kts to 3 miles always roll to the end (regardless of the taxi to the stand). But I'd guess you'd prefer a bit of flexibility - and you can do much better because you're a professional!

And another guess - you've not been on a visit to ATC for years. And if you have you didn't ask your question. Because if you had I can't believe that the people there didn't show you all the reasons and point out that they've got more than one aeroplane to worry about.

[Warped Factor]

Nextleft,

It may not be as important today but missed approaches used to be designed so that an aircraft with a radio failure is put into a position where another approach can be flown. So straight ahead (until when???) is not a very prudent procedure. Amsterdam (and Heathrow in days gone by it would seem) rely on very quick action from ATC - much as I think that ATC people are good and will do their best, do you really want to rely on ATC who may have something else occupying their minds sort you out?? (By the way - just because the controller isn't talking, it doesn't mean that they're not busy.

Radio fail, straight ahead until when?

Until it said so on the approach chart and MATS Pt 2. Which at Heathrow was SAH to 3,000ft. Then at LON DME 10 turn left/right for EPM NDB and enter the hold. Then commence a procedural approach under normal r/t fail procedures. Pretty straightforward really.

Personaly I wouldn't rely on the new(er) missed approach procedures being totally failsafe without any ATC intervention either.

WF.

[Brookmans Park]

Ini answer to MEL able with regard to missed approach radio aid selection

The capability to select Go-Around radio aids which do not form part of the final approach procedure varies greatly from one a/c to another.

In the best case when DME hold or preselect
facilities are available then for example the SSJ freqency can be preselected.

However there are still numerous a/c where
go around VOR//DME frqs can not be selected until one no longer needs the final approach radio aids selected.

Therefore any MAP should be based on the same aids as the approach.

At the moment I get around this problem at
several several so called airports which require comlex reselections by making use of
the GPS, having previously cross checked it against the ground based aids before tarting the approach.

I operate medium jets on sched services
into european airfields where in some cases
the ILS still uses a non paired DME, which we can not select separately From the ILS and the missed approach uses that same DME and then a turn to a nearby VOR .

The company SOP requires both pilots to select the ILS and the auto pilot requires signals from the No.1 system to capture the ILS. Consequently a Go Around requires the reselection of both VHF nav radios after setting G/A thrust raising flaps and gear and
then a 90 degree turn at 3 miles on the new DME frq. It might work in c172 but not in a jet. I always brief that we will make use of our hi tech GPS, having crosschecked it before the approach

[MEL-able]

Hello all,

A few reactions

S.Voight
Who does invent those missed approaches? Are there any pilots involved?
In the case of Palma....straight ahead is only water, and if they would make a turn on an ILSDME distance it would be a lot better to start with.

But concerning your point of traffic:
If a go-around would state Straight Ahead, 5 DME of the ILS, thence turn to left/right direct to beacon to hold.
Would there be a problem to keep the straight ahead, 5 miles clear of traffic?

I have flown into DFW often. 17 and 18 would not be a problem to go straight ahead, when 1 landing, the other taking off.
With 13 (as I believe it is, recalled from memory) it might more difficult, because you are crossing the path of 17/18, but this is where my "where not possible" scenario kicks in, just as in a mountainious area.

Next left

I don't understand PT aircraft, but I am talking multi-crew, like DanRyan described clearly (thanx) where the ILS navaid is used on both sides according SOP's that all airliners use! So, yes, SSJ not identified.

In the case of Palma....Why SSJ DME and not IPAL ILS DME? And make it 5 DME minimum to give us time to configure..(rather 10, give us time to think as well) and thence give me the turn to MJV VOR to hold, I would be very pleased and out of the way for other traffic!!

As gonzo says...You'd be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't to learn just how many crews climb straight ahead despite the published Missed Approach!

This is true! If in an approach-briefing the missed approach takes more than 10 seconds to explain, there is something wrong with the procedure, because in a LVO (stress) go-around, you will lose it and have to redirect your attention to the piece of paper to read, in stead of the aircraft attitude and configuration!

I do give the ATC-ers the credit for their performance. Everyone is doing it to the best of their ability when they are sitting in their seat. Some are good, others are great! BUT they don't think the same way as pilots! It is a shame that in England, where all ATC-ers were given the chance to get their PPL license, has been taken out of the ATC-program. I think this was a very good initiative to have.

It is a shame that you seem to have the "you are a pilot, and I am a ATC-er attitude" with regard to your note at the bottom of your posting.
-"If you want standrdisation you can have 15 mile final approaches with 160kts to 3 miles always roll to the end (regardless of the taxi to the stand). But I'd guess you'd prefer a bit of flexibility - and you can do much better because you're a professional"
-"And another guess - you've not been on a visit to ATC for years. And if you have you didn't ask your question. Because if you had I can't believe that the people there didn't show you all the reasons and point out that they've got more than one aeroplane to worry about."

We are all trying to do our job and should work TOGETHER to make life easy and safer. I am not all-knowing, that's why I ask questions. To learn and to understand. That's also why I go and visit the tower every once in a while.

WF

Sorry, I am not aware of the LHR incident and have not got the Jepp with me to look at the missed approach in LHR. From your posting, remember the "lost comm faillure", the 10 DME (LON, why not ILSDME?), but this should also be a FANTASTIC NORMAL missed approach procedure!

Greetings to all and thanx for the replies so far!

:cool: MEL

[Warped Factor]

MEL,

Couldn't tell you why LON VOR and not the ILS, I'm afraid.

Report on an incident near London Heathrow Airport on 27 August 1997 - AIRPROX (C) : Boeing 737-200 and Boeing 757 (http://www.aaib.dtlr.gov.uk/formal/airp2/airp2.htm)

The above I think is the most recent incident and the one that was the driving force in getting the missed approaches changed from "SAH to 3,000ft then as directed by ATC" to the current ones, which are.....


27L Climb to 2000ft - straight ahead until passing 1076 (1000)ft or Zero DME I-LL
inbound, whichever is later, then left onto track 150°MAG. When established and
passing 6 DME LON, climb to 3000ft without delay. Continue as directed by ATC.

09R Climb straight to 3000ft
Continue as directed by ATC.

27R Climb to 3000ft - straight ahead until passing 1577 (1500)ft or Zero DME I-RR
inbound, whichever is later, turn right onto track 320° MAG. Continue as directed by
ATC.

09L Climb to 3000ft - straight ahead until passing 1580 (1500)ft or Zero DME I-AA
inbound, whichever is later, then left onto track 040°MAG. Continue as directed by ATC.

23 Climb to 2000ft - straight ahead from Mapt (RTR 2nm) until passing 1076 (1000)ft or
Zero DME H-TT inbound, whichever is later, then left onto track 180°MAG. When
established and passing 6 DME LON, climb to 3000ft without delay. Continue as
directed by ATC.

I understand they were test flown in the sim by BAW and given the okay by them.

WF.

[NextLeftAndCallGround]

OK so I had my grumpy head on last time. the them and us thing was a response to the reference to a nut designing the procedures - the procedure designer usually being one of us on the ground! Less grumpy head on tonight.

The design criteria for all instrument approach procedures (including missed approaches) in in ICAO PANS-OPS (Doc 8168). I think this gives lots of options but recommends the straight ahead solution where possible. Unfortunately this document still has to work for less sophisticated locations and is often based on the lowest common denominator of a simple procedural only ATC environment and doesn't cater well for the modern European environment with high traffic density and lots of radar.

WF picked me up on the straight ahead until when? thing - if you go back to the original post MEL-able seemed to be asking for all missed approaches to go straight ahead - I was trying to point out that in a radio fail situation the procedure has to go somewhere or I guess turn back to the airport which is what Heathrow's do.

Gonzo says that I might be surprised how many aircraft just go straight ahead regardless of what the procedure says - I'm not! But I'll deal with each go-around indvidually to get it back into the sequence as quickly as possible if there are no problems.

Which leads to another question - when was the last time you flew the full missed approach (or made an aircraft follow it) except for training. In most cases you'll either be vectored back into the circuit or be given different instructions because the end of the missed approach is not normally a good place to have an aircraft (from a controllers viewpoint). But if the aircraft or ATC has gone radio fail - and it can still happen - its nice to know what the aircraft should do even if it doesn't do it immediately.

The point about why not use the paired DME I would guess is because it will be because there's a difference (in ICAO terms if not for real) between a paired DME that is only certified for use with the ILS and an en-route DME - I'd lay money that the design book says that you can't use the paired DME for a missed approach.

Sorry for the assumption you'd be able to select all the aids needed - it's certainly a point that's been made during the approach briefing on all the fam flights and flight deck rides I've been on and no-one's mentioned the problem.

[Scott Voigt]

Hi MEL;

In the US the controllers are the ones who start the MAP process in design. However, we are guided by a book called TERPS that tells us what we can and can't do as well as an order that goes into even more of what we can and can't do <G>. Once we are done doing the design, it then goes to the AVN folks in OKC where they do all of the looing into the charting of procedures and drawing them up to ensure that what we did was correct. This group of folks is made up of both former controllers and flight check folks. So yes pilots are involved. We also look at flyability checks on most everything that we design...

I hope that helps, and as to runway 13R at DFW in a south flow. You indeed have to start your turn to the south IMMEDIATELY or you wind up having a close encounter of the worst kind <G>...

regards null

[MEL-able]

WF

I guess you had the Jepp handy, or you have an increadable memory <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

As you say, the missed approaches are a little more complicated.
They are not too bad, not too complicated, but as you might agree, a 1076 ft indicated or a 1577 ft indicated should have been better been rounded to 1000 ft or 2000 ft (may be for someone to pick up on)
Thank you for the input!

Next left

yes, I thought you were a little grumpy, but no hard feelings. My "Nut" was may be not the most tactical word to use, but it expressed my feeling best, because sometimes I wonder what people ask me to remember in a go-around which I consider pretty unusual and therefor "dangerous".
I don't think it is the meaning of a go-around to look back at your yoke to find the small print on the chart where it states the procedure, to confirm that I am doing the correct thing, turning and twisting close to the ground. Sometimes it is really "nuts" and that is where the expression came from.

For me, the "Amsterdam" straight ahead is the least complicated...even I can remember...and yes, I if I could make the procedure, this would be my thing.
You and SV pointed out correctly that there is other traffic you have to deal with. In these scenario's comes in my option nr:2
-Straight ahead, xxx ft (and please, make it an easy to remember number...) OR
-Straight ahead, 5 DME
.....before we have to think about making a turn..

Leading right away to your question...
"when was the last time you flew the full missed approach (or made an aircraft follow it) except for training. In most cases you'll either be vectored back into the circuit or be given different instructions"

I have not made a missed approach for real in the last 1 1/2 or 2 years. This is also exactly why I wondered about the complexity of some missed approaches. It is an unusual thing for us to get into, as well as the reason that I state "noise abatement is not a good excuse" (because for the few to be flown, you should not compomise safety!)

In the cases that I flew the missed approach, I did receive radar vector and altitude which is a great relief my side. (and an extra stress yours.. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> )

The non-paired DME, yes, a mistery, but you might well be right that the book says so. But you may understand that I think it is odd.

But thank you for the clarification! As I said before, I life and learn and ask a whole bunch of stupid questions, because I am just curious and don't understand that flying can be made so difficult. I think the practical way, not the theoretical...

S V
Also thanks for your comment. I have heard the "TERPS" and think it might be a booklet that I read with just as much difficulty as the contracts written by layers...
As you say, a lot of guidelines, specially about the "don't-s"
I was wondering if there was a specific organization like IATA or similar that was checking up on the procedures, because it needs to be a combined effort from controllers and pilots making the procedure.
In my opinion, a missed approach that takes longer than 10 seconds to explain, is not good and I am surprized that no pilot organization is/was involved.


Again, all of you, thanx, and keep up the good work!

Greetings
MEL

[Scott Voigt]

MEL'

In the US we have a group called the charting forum which is made up of FAA / Jepps and a whole lot of pilots groups including the military. They go over all of these sorts of things. It is not at all done in a vacumme. You have to remember that these missed approaches have to be written so that they can be flown with no radios. That stuff happens, as well as no radar. That happens too. Most of the folks here don't want to have all of the procedures show "fadar required" because that limits things for people when the radar isn't working correctly.

As to straight ahead to 5 DME. That works great if you have no other airports around or arrival complexes. There are a lot of busy places around the world where that just doesn't work well. You would basicly shut down another airport while approaches were going on since you have to protect for the missed approach. That just isn't acceptable to most folks...

Take care