What altitude will you fly after a missed visual approach? [Archive]

Bruce Waddington

1st Sep 2009, 01:23

Kuobin,

The FAA AIM states that, "e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances."

The Canadian AIM states virtually the same thing. No altitude is specified other than to follow ATC instructions at a controlled airport and to remain clear of cloud at an uncontrolled one.

As mentioned above some published missed approaches do have missed approach procedures to follow, but the are nonetheless not an IAP.

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

OzExpat

1st Sep 2009, 09:48

All this advise doesn't really satisfy the consideration of the altitude at which you have to go around from a visual approach. Forget the reason for the need to do so, the fact is that you have to contend with the reality of the situation - most especially at aerodromes that are uncontrolled (i.e. where you actually have to think for yourselves and earn your money as pilot in command).

To me, it really doesn't matter whether the aerodrome is controlled or not. I will still ALWAYS brief a missed approach on the basis of my previous post. Start thinking for yourself!

If ATC is there, fine, start your go-around, tell them - though they'll obviously have seen it. If they then issue an alternative clearance, you can evaluate that against your own briefing so that you KNOW whether or not you're being given a "bum steer". The passengers are YOUR responsibility all the way to the terminal.

potteroomore

2nd Sep 2009, 03:18

Ahh....how easy we forget the basics we learnt during our PPL/CPL days!!!

Many years ago in the back waters of SEAsia, I was humbled and shaken by a near airmiss after a missed approach after a visual approach. Years of flying into Syd where the local procedures called for a missed approach following the charted instrument missed approach........so by a force of habit, I carried out the RWY 25 ILS missed approach in KCH ( WBGG ) after being cleared for a visual approach onto that runway. We had sighted the runway but stuffed up the approach after being high and fast. It was a clear day with visibility of 10km or more but cloud base of about 3000 feet. The ILS missed approach called for a climb towards the VKG VOR climbing to 4000 ft. I was on tower frequency and unbeknownst to me, the approach controller had cleared another aircracft to overhead the VOR at 4000 ft and we nearly had a big fireball.........we were saved when my sharp f/o casually mentioned that we ought to join the visual traffic circuit; I said " what, who told you that? " He casually mentioned the name of one of the local training check captain's name and suddenly I had goose bumps; I didn't know why but I just yanked the aircraft into an immediate left turn as we almost disappeared into the stratus layer at about 3500 feet, followed by a real quick descent to circuit altitude as the tower come everly slowly asking our intention! It was a very quiet and squeaky request for another visual circuit when we were advised by tower that the approach ( there was no radar in KCH in the early 90s; no TCAS then, too ) control had cleared the other aircraft for a full ILS with an altitude restriction of 2500 ft until we have landed. Tower had expected us to maintained circuit altitude 1500 ft when we conducted the visual missed approach. It had happened so fast and I must say the tower controller wasn't on the ball too! We finally did another visual approach after the aircraft was sent around to the VOR for another full ILS approach.

What triggered the goose bumps and the sharp left turn which saved the day? About a year earlier had a route check and was debriefed by a particular line check captain that I ought to set the circuit altitude on the MCP altitude selector as the missed approach altitude and expect to join the aerodrome visual circuit should I had to carry out a go around during a visual approach. Well, this chap was a young chinaman who was made instructor/checker after less than a year as a captain on the B734 after coming down from the B744; well I guess we Oz expats did not take too kindly to young upstarts, suffice to say I didn't take him too seriously and just errr ed& hummed my way during the debriefing!! However I was truly lucky that subconsciously, that debrief leapt into me at the right time. And my f/o was similarly briefed on this by that same instrucor during his line training and he managed to sheepishly remind ( albeit casually ) this highly experienced foreign captain to join the visual circuit! Talk about divine intervention or providence!! I bought my f/o a full dinner with the whole works that night! And months later I ran into that instructor ( well, he had transitioned onto the A330 ) and I thanked him profusely.......he had forgotten about that debrief but mentioned that he was amazed at how we pilots have forgotten the basics that we learnt our PPL/CPL training after we obtained out ATPLs!

slamer.

3rd Sep 2009, 07:59

Short answer is.. Depends what specific state rules require. Ref Jepp or equivalent publication.

Busserday

3rd Sep 2009, 16:14

Accepting a Visual Approach is in fact canceling the IFR flight plan and if you choose to go flying past the last cleared point, probably the button of the active, don't expect separation from any IFR traffic. Stay clear of cloud and respect the VFR rules, other than that, you are on your own. Otherwise don't accept a "Visual".

BD

mad_jock

3rd Sep 2009, 16:42

Busserday not in Europe you ain't.

Its quiet an eye opener this and a point learned about reading that bit in the JEPs which is usually only ever seen when you do the updates.

seilfly

3rd Sep 2009, 16:52

How can a visual approach cancel an IFR flight plan when it is defined this way...?

FAA.gov:

VISUAL APPROACH- An approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. (the rest is cut away to shorten the quote)

VISUAL APPROACH [ICAO]- An approach by an IFR flight when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed in visual reference to terrain.

Busserday

3rd Sep 2009, 17:38

Mad Jock, reference please, I don't seem to be able to find a Jep reference to Visual Approachs for Europe.

mad_jock

3rd Sep 2009, 21:38

It might not include it if its US only plates. I don't have a clue if it is or isn't

In an Eur version there is one book which has all the ICAO regulations in it which is as quoted by seilfly and then there is a section with all the differences which each individual country has filed.

And to add the second comment I made was to myself to read that section to see what the differences are.

totempole

6th Sep 2009, 23:32

me thinks potteroo is on to something correct. the local AIP or terminal charts will indicate missed approach procedures if charted like SFO or SYD. or if the tower clears you for a visual approach, the controller will give you a missed approach instruction in case you missed or if you carry out a go around you contact the tower pronto for instructions. in the absence of all the above, for god sake you are responsible for staying visual, avoid clouds, traffic and obstacles and join the prevailing traffic pattern. this more so in smaller airports where the tower is a one man show where the controller controls ground traffic, dishing out airways clearances etc. just because you are an atp flying big jets going to big airports with radar control and never joining a visual traffic pattern doesn't mean you forget your responsibility of visually eyeballing yourself into a visual traffic pattern after going around.

PantLoad

7th Sep 2009, 06:22

My company's SOP for such a situation was to climb to the missed approach altitude for the instrument approach that serves that runway.
If there is no such instrument approach, climb to normal pattern altitude
or MSA or MVA or as assigned by ATC.

Fly safe,

PantLoad

flyboyike

7th Sep 2009, 12:37

1,500 AAE unless otherwise instructed, which we usually are.

JAR

7th Sep 2009, 16:38

How about the Circle to Land MHA(H) - safe and also tells you which sector is not approved for circling?

9.G

7th Sep 2009, 19:57

flying under EU OPS published missed approach
under FAA circuit altitude unless instructed otherwise by ATC.

Cheers:ok:

bookworm

8th Sep 2009, 07:22

flying under EU OPS published missed approach

Reference please? Or is that a company-specific thing for an EU-OPS operator?

I flew a missed approach after a visual approach in France a couple of days ago. I got directions (turn right downwind) but no altitude instruction, though in the mayhem that was Le Touquet on Sunday I imagine the controller had lost track of who was IFR and who was VFR.

9.G

8th Sep 2009, 08:48

bookworm, nice nickname btw. Well, it's the definition as such. Under Eu OPS visual approach is still part of IFR clearance thus published missed applies unless of course ATC instructs you otherwise. Under FAR it was quoted before visual isn't part of IFR any more. That's the whole difference.

Homo proponit, sed Deus disponit.:ok:

bookworm

9th Sep 2009, 07:29

Well, it's the definition as such. Under Eu OPS visual approach is still part of IFR clearance thus published missed applies unless of course ATC instructs you otherwise. Under FAR it was quoted before visual isn't part of IFR any more. That's the whole difference.

Neither assertion is correct, 9.G. A visual approach is an IFR approach under both FAA and EU OPS rules, and indeed under ICAO rules (PANS-ATM 6.5.3). But since an IAP may not even have been included in the clearance, there may be no "published missed approach" to fly in any jurisdiction. There may even be no IAP for the runway in question. If you can find something in EU OPS to the contrary, then cite it.

OzExpat

9th Sep 2009, 11:45

Well, I guess all will be well if you have to go missed approach in EU-land or FAA-land. That's all clear as mud to me. Anyway, if you're anywhere else in this whole wide, wonderful world, you probably better hope that your company has procedures that comply with the local AIP and legislative requirements.

If not, you just might end up spoiling your whole day! :eek:

9.G

11th Sep 2009, 12:04

FAA rules:
The FAA AIM states that, "e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances."
Needless to comment methinks.

EU OPS rules:
"Visual approach". An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain. this definition found in ALL weather OPS section applicable to IFR rules obviously. Therefore under EU OPS visual approach is part if IFR IAP clearance and doesn't covert the flight rules to VFR which would imply flying the circuit altitude. As we're all aware of once the IAP has been commenced it must be finished either in a successful landing or a execution of a missed approach procedure.

All this shouldn't preclude you from doing what's regarded by you as to rightful course of actions.

Cheerio:ok:

Tmbstory

11th Sep 2009, 12:36

EpsilonVaz

11th Sep 2009, 13:28

Flew a visual approach into a UK airfield yesterday, in the briefing to the Captain, I said "as it's a visual approach, if we need to go around we will climb to the circuit altitude and join downwind". His response "err.... well, let's follow the missed approach procedure for the ILS (which was out of service)." Amid some confusion and debate, I agreed.

9.G

11th Sep 2009, 14:01

But since an IAP may not even have been included in the clearance, there may be no "published missed approach" to fly in any jurisdiction. There may even be no IAP for the runway in question.

Bookworm, can you file a IFR flight plan to a destination lacking IAP? No commercial public flight, conducted with performance A aircraft, can be operated under VFR unless explicitly authorized by flight operations manager.
Regarding the approach clearance it's a absolute MUST to specify which approach procedure one is cleared for. Whatever IAP is declared to be in use as per ATIS must be followed unless cleared otherwise. Consequently MA for this particular procedure shall be followed. I totally agree the topic could be explained in a unambiguous way but it's not. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers:ok:

DFC

11th Sep 2009, 17:00

A visual approach is a procedure all of it's own. There is no defined obstacle clearance provided and the pilot is responsible for deciding what track and level to fly at to avoid obstacles. The flight is still IFR unless the pilot has cancelled the IFR flight plan.

The US, ICAO and European rules agree on this point.

If you have to execute a missed approach from a visual approach then you fly the missed approach appropriate to that visual approach - as agreed with ATC.

Unless you want a surprise you should ask in advance what ATC want in the event of a missed approach.

If you have discontinued one approach procedure in favour of another then one can not rely on the missed approach being the same. -

The first words of the Visual approach definition - It is a procedure.

A Circling procedure is something that is done after completing an IAP in order to line up with the landing runway. It has a defined containment area and one can not leave the IAP until within this area otherwise obstacle clearance may be compromised.

Unless specified otherwise, the missed approach for a circling is the IAP missed approach - initial turn towards the aerodrome overhead and follow the MAP.

--------

9.G,

Performance A simply relates to the aircraft performance and it's ability to avoid obstacles. The criteria apply in both VMC and IMC, VFR and IFR.

Anyone can file an IFR flight to an aerodrome with no IAP. The flight has to be visual at the IFR minimum safe level in order to descend for landing since it has no procedure for getting lower. This might make operations impractical but not impossible. Some countries require IFR to be cancelled before descending below the minimum level and others do not.

Bruce Waddington

11th Sep 2009, 17:11

9.G,

I found the same comments for a visual approach under EU rules, but no other.

So, my question is this.

If a visual approach is " An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain." would that not include the missed approach segment of the IAP ?

Comments ?

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

9.G

12th Sep 2009, 17:25

DFC, what is climb gradient requirement for performance class A aircraft departing VFR please? The answer is simply NONE avoid it by visual means that's it. All performance criteria are applicable to Instrument procedures for one very valid reason coz you don't see them thus one must meet performance. The title in the 4444 doc is Instrument procedure design not Visual procedure design. To underline it you have the choice of avoiding obstacles by visual means in case of EO. The whole idea of constructing the procedures is about making a blind IFR flight safe, nothing else. Obviously that's the reason why NO public commercial flight with performance class A aircraft can be operated under VFR unless authorized so. It's simply much safer to fly IFR.

if no IAP is available at the time of arrival IFR flight can be dispatched und IFR/VFR with the DFO consent and IFR portion must be canceled once safe landing can be assured by visual means. Good luck filing IFR flight plan to an airdrome with no published IFR procedures.

Cheers.:ok:

9.G

12th Sep 2009, 18:34

If a visual approach is " An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain." would that not include the missed approach segment of the IAP ? Let's have a practical look at it, shall we? Under EU OPS min req. VIS for a visual 800 m not more than that. Can you fly a traffic pattern with this VIS? I have my doubts. The purpose of the visual approach is to be placed into a position preferably on final to complete IFR procedure by visual means. nothing else. It's different under FAA, don't ask me why. Under no cuircumstances do the flight rules change you still fly IFR. Aerodrome traffic pattern is a standard procedure for VFR flights not IFR. Under IFR you fly circle to land not a a traffic pattern consequently in case of a go around you don't just join a VFR circuit pattern but fly MA for IAP in use. Why should it be any different for a visual approach? Once again in MHO the key to understanding here is the applicable rules namely Instrument flight rules. In any case I stand to be corrected of course.
Cheers.:ok:

DFC

12th Sep 2009, 23:30

9.G,

A performance A aircraft from V1 on must be able to become airborne safely, clear all obstacles by the required margin and fly to a place where a safe landing can be made.

The only thing that being VMC gains the Performance A operator is the ability to determine track accurately and thus reduce the size of the area in which obstacles have to be cleared by the net minimum.

Under EU OPS min req. VIS for a visual 800 m not more than that. Can you fly a traffic pattern with this VIS? I have my doubts

The 800m is an arbitary figure. To make a visual approach then you have to be visual. You do not have to be VMC. It is not unusual to have a lovely clear sky with not a cloud in sight for 500 miles and the only thing stopping your visual approach is a bit of shallow fog at the aerodrome giving a reported visibility of 500m eventhough you can clearly see the landing threshold. Far safer to do the ILS in that case.

john_tullamarine

13th Sep 2009, 09:25

A performance A aircraft from V1 on must be able to become airborne safely, clear all obstacles by the required margin and fly to a place where a safe landing can be made.

Presuming all goes well. Theory versus the real world, I'm afraid. Reads better if you replace "must" by "probably should on most occasions".

The only thing that being VMC gains the Performance A operator is the ability to determine track accurately and thus reduce the size of the area in which obstacles have to be cleared by the net minimum.

Depends on the rules applicable. eg in Oz, above a specified MTOW, the takeoff has to be predicated on the presumption of IMC. In any case, with the usual jet pitch attitude, I suggest that it is folly to attempt to eyeball a critical departure.

DFC

13th Sep 2009, 17:49

In any case, with the usual jet pitch attitude, I suggest that it is folly to attempt to eyeball a critical departure.

I was never suggesting that a performance A aircraft would be required to visually avoid obstacles in the take-off funnel.

What I was trying to explain is that for example in the case of a departure with a track change of more than 15 degrees, the maximum width of the take-off funnel is 1200m if the pilot can acurately maintain the requried track and 1800m if they can't. In the absence of suitable navigation aids, a limitation of VMC can give the pilot the ability to maintain the required track visually so that the funnel is smaller.

Imagin a departure along a tight valley with a 30 degree turn 1nm after the runway end. No navigation aids. If IMC is permitted then the funnel expands until it is 1800m wide - taking in quite a bit of the hills each side of the valley. If the procedure is limited to VMC then the pilot can (a) determine the 1 mile point if there is a good landmark and accurately track the valley centerline thus reducing the final size of the funnel and the height of the obstacles that are in it.

Hope that explains my point better.

Agree with the statistical situation but ensuring that the net requirments are met makes it very unlikely that the gross performance will be less than the net - assuming all factors are as planned of course!!

bookworm

13th Sep 2009, 18:45

Bookworm, can you file a IFR flight plan to a destination lacking IAP?

Yes.

But I think you're missing the point of the sentences you quoted from me. Even if there is an IAP, it may not have been assigned before the clearance for a visual approach is given, and a visual approach may be made to a runway without an IAP.

The FAA AIM states that... Needless to comment methinks.

The comment should be obvious -- that a visual approach under FAA rules is conducted under IFR, not VFR.

mad_jock

13th Sep 2009, 18:59

There are a few departures out there which are VMC limited dependant on the aircraft.

The one that springs to mind is Vargar in the Faroes. If you don't have the single engine climb performance your only option is to fly it visually.

The 146's are quite happy to climb straight out into IMC but my TP has to fly down the valley remaining in contact with the ground and a bloody great rock at the end of the valley until I clear the end and make a turn to the south.

I disagree that a visual approach is an approach all of its own. You are still as such doing the initial cleared approach . Your just visually missing bits out and getting to exactly the same missed approach point. In a radar environment the missed approach maybe very different to the published purely for the reason they can and it helps the other traffic. In a procedural environment its the only thing the controller can pin his hat on to ensure separation. If you do decided to deviate from said missed approach you really are on your own for terrain avoidance and quite possibly endangering other aircraft because the procedural controller won't have a clue where you are in relation to their picture of traffic.

Calvin Hops

13th Sep 2009, 22:25

potteroo..........are you referring to a certain MAS TRE known as dynamite? Well, I learnt a lot from this unassuming gentleman especially during the period when we had chaos in the Malaysian skies when a fire destroyed the radar and atc equipment. Flying during that period reminded me of earlier times in PNG and Bourganville!

DFC

14th Sep 2009, 09:20

You are still as such doing the initial cleared approach

The whole point is that you are not doing the IAP. That is where the confusion arises with regard to what missed approach procedure to do.

There is no obstacle clearance requriements and no protected area and no missed approach point and no missed approach procedure for a visual approach.

How can you have a publsied missed approach procedure for a procedure that is not published?

Here is a good example - The weather is CAVOK. You are being vectored for the ILS 23R at Manchester. While 5nm north of the field You request and are cleared for a visual approach number 1. Just after that, the ILS goes off the air. Do you now have a problem? How are you going to proceed since under your personal rule, you are still flying the ILS, you simply have the ability to cut some corners and are still flying the ILS IAP?

If I am flying a visual approach, I really don't care if all the approach aids fail. After all, I am already visual and I do not need them to guide me to a point where I can continue visually - which after all is the whoe reason for an IAP.

belowradar

14th Sep 2009, 10:10

Have flown a lot of ILS with circle to land on opposite runway recently and have noticed confusion from pilots when at VMC(OCA) (CIRCLE TO LAND MINIMA). At minima they instictively want to climb to VFR Circuit height rather than maintain the minima specified for the circling approach. In weather this may take you back into cloud and no longer able to maintain VMC. They state that it feels weird to be flying below normal traffic pattern.

If unable to maintain VMC while circling then initiate the missed approach for the ILS that you flew prior to circling whilst staying within the protected area with runway and turning towards the runway.

That's my understanding and if you break off at normal traffic pattern height there is no point in having a lower circling minima specified and the chances are higher that you will not maintain VMC so what was the point ?

BOAC

14th Sep 2009, 10:31

Not quite sure how we got onto VFR departures, but back to topic!

You can arrive in a circuit pattern at an airfield at any height you choose (subject to company and local regs and safety) and from any direction as long as:-

a) It is safe
b) Everyone, inside and outside the cockpit who needs to know what you are doing does.

The g/a from a visual approach would 'normally' be into a further visual circuit.

The height for a visual circuit is likewise yours to choose subject to the above. I once watched RAM at GMMN flying round the pattern at 500' and quite enjoying it!

belowradar

14th Sep 2009, 10:37

Found this ref in my CATS ATPL study guide hope it helps clarify: :ok:
Key point is that there is s published minimum alt/height for visual circling
Descent below MDA/H should not be made until:
• visual reference has been established and can be maintained;
• the pilot has the landing threshold in sight; and
• the required obstacle clearance can be maintained and the aircraft is in a position to carry out a landing.A circling approach is a visual flight manoeuvre. Each circling situation is different because of variables such as runway layout, final approach track, wind velocity and meteorological conditions. Therefore, there can be no single procedure designed that will cater for conducting a circling approach in every situation. After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment (i.e., the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway) should be kept in sight while at MDA/H for circling.If visual reference is lost while circling to land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed. It is expected that the pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome where he will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.As the circling manoeuvre may be accomplished in more than one direction, different patterns will be required to establish the aircraft on the prescribed missed approach course depending on its position at the time visual reference is lost.

BOAC

14th Sep 2009, 11:09

The OP asked about g/a from a visual approach, not a circling approach.

mad_jock

14th Sep 2009, 11:27

I find it hillarious that at Man you would hook it into a visual circuit. I have actually been in that very situation of having a visual missed approach at Man on that very runway due to Air France doing there usual and stuffing up everyone crossing the active. Went around from 500ft followed the ILS missed approach got handed over to radar and vectored in for another go. Off 23R with a left circuit you would get right in the way of 23L out bounds. If you did a right hand circuit appart from the noise complaints you would probarly get it in the ear because half of the trafford center would phone the police thinking that another 9/11 was kicking off.

I don't think a bunch of pilots are going to decide this, I suspect we are going to have to get some ATC input and I suspect that it will be very different depending which country they are from.

And I can now see why so many old but not bold skipper's will refuse point blank to do a visual approach.

BOAC

14th Sep 2009, 13:02

And I can now see why so many old but not bold skipper's will refuse point blank to do a visual approach. - I suspect your answer lies more in http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/388573-pilot-handling-skills-under-threat-says-airbus.html plus the possibility that they spent their RHS time flying with similar Captains:) and are now in doubt about their potential do one - a coupled ILS is so much easier, isn't it?

EpsilonVaz

14th Sep 2009, 14:16

I don't see how you can justify following the missed approach of the ILS for that runway if the ILS is U/S?

Zippy Monster

14th Sep 2009, 14:43

I don't see how you can justify following the missed approach of the ILS for that runway if the ILS is U/S

Agreed... wouldn't you then fly the missed approach procedure for the instrument approach in operation (VOR or whatever)?

In the circumstance raised above where you've been vectored for an ILS approach, chosen to finish visually and then the ILS goes off the air during the visual segment; if part of the missed approach procedure is dependent on the ILS DME, for example, I would probably ask for vectors from ATC. If the missed approach didn't depend on any element of the ILS, but instead on other navigation aids, we would probably just fly it as briefed.

At my home base we do visual approaches regularly, and at no point do we ever brief a different missed approach for a visual completion than for following the ILS all the way down. The missed approach altitude is set the same, and the procedure in the FMGC is unchanged from the missed approach for the in-use instrument procedure.

bayete

14th Sep 2009, 16:41

I think discussion about IAPs is maybe a moot point because there are many different ways that you may come to be flying a visual approach, ie breaking off from an ILS, joining downwind/crosswind/base or braking off overhead on an NDB etc.
At the end of the day common sense must prevail regardless of the ICAO/FAA rules and as we see here by this discussion they are not very clear.
Look at where you are, would I turn downwind at CCT height if going missed from 27 at Le Bourget? No Paris City to the left and CDG to the right! (Would I fly a visual App at Le Bourget probably not!)
In less congested airspace, on a nice day I certainly would fly a visual approach to save time/fuel etc. To ATC I might use the phrase "Confirm circuit height and direction in the event of a go around?" This gives them the opportunity to think about what they might want you to do in the event of a missed. 90% of the time they will say something like "maintain 1500' RH pattern" or similar.

9.G

14th Sep 2009, 19:37

cut the long story short I avoid flying visual approaches as much as I can for the all aforesaid reasons. In case needed clear instructions are requested for a go around. Methinks ATC fellas might put an end to the debate with a conclusive answer.
DFC, J.T has nailed it. My understanding of performance class A aircraft under EU OPS is to be assumed using IFR based on PANS OPS design criterion. As mentioned before certain aerodromes might impose additional minima like VIS ceiling (not VFR) and a clear pictorial and written procedures must be made available to the crew. This thesis is simply confirmed by a restriction imposed by operators AOC annexes and part A restriction to fly VFR.
Regardless of whatever IAP you fly, whenever visual cues are acquired and landing can be performed safely nothing precludes one from doing so. Conversely, whenever visual references are lost, even-though they were established at the minimum etc a go around must be performed.

Dear moderators if we could get a conclusive answer from ATC guys please much appreciated.
Cheers :ok:

InSoMnIaC

14th Sep 2009, 23:14

I think No matter how well you think you know the airspace/airfield, it is a very good idea to always ask the controller about what missed approach he expects you to do. I mean it's not as if we are flying visual approaches 6 times a day. flying is not rocket science. just be sensible and at the end of the day the idea is not to kill yourself and others.

DFC

15th Sep 2009, 09:09

Not only the missed approach needs care.

Many aerodromes have noise requriements relating to the approach also. These usually are along the lines of not flying lower than an aircraft making a normal 3 degree approach, not joining final approach below xxxxx feet etc.

---------

9.G,

I never mentioned VFR (or IFR). If you read the performance requirements in EU-OPS you will see that the size of the area in which obstacles have to be cleared is reduced if the pilot can determine their track i.e. navigate visually.

In the case of the missed approach - if you decide to go-arround late i.e. below the DA / MDA, you have left the protected area of the approach procedure and it's associaled missed approach. You should still have the protection of the balked landing surface and other obstacle limitation surfaces in the vicinity of the aerodrome (or be aware of the obstacles !!) but starting a missed approach from 50ft and then having an engine failure (always alowed for in performance A) can mean that even if you flew the full ILS you will not be able to clear the obstacles in the published missed approach for that procedure.

You and your company should be prepared for such a situation.

9.G

15th Sep 2009, 09:33

DFC Performance A simply relates to the aircraft performance and it's ability to avoid obstacles. The criteria apply in both VMC and IMC, VFR and IFR. It's your words my friend. Never mind we're here not to accuse but to seek for conclusive answers.
SE go around from 50 ft DH CAT III SINGLE for Airbus is a standard procedure for recurrent LVO evaluation. It's operators responsibility to make sure all performance criteria are met and in case not contingency procedures must be made available to the crew. Therefore when you brief your approach you MUST among the other things make sure landing and go around performance are met in EO conditions. Usually the operator has got a policy in place and 10-7 Jeppesen charts specifying SE procedures to be followed in both TO and GA. As a general rule whenever below MLW and MA climb gradient doesn't exceed 2.5% or VISUAL published MA can be followed otherwise contingency procedure is ought to be flown.
Cheers:ok:

potteroomore

17th Sep 2009, 00:47

Potteroomore:

Glad you learned from the incident, it is the story of life!.

My eyebrows rose at your comment about Kuching, it is not a backwater, I spent about 14 years flying from there and enjoyed every minute of it.

Glad you had a great time there ; well outside KCH, it's pretty backwater to me........mossie filled jungles, swamps, longhouses with possible headhunters ( no, not the corporate kind! ), etc. Even in KCH town, litter filled drains with people squatting on the side and eating the smelly spiky fruit and tossing husks and seeds into the stinking muck! Well you do have Anglophiles having high tea in posh bungalows thanks to the CM with a pommie wifey, but overall not really my kind of place for long term!

As for Calvin, I think you're right as I do remember some people referring to him as such....maybe because of his initials. Quite sometime back, so such things are quite hazy but the incident still crystal clear!

mad_jock

19th Sep 2009, 14:58

ICAO - According to ICAO, an air traffic controller may not assign a visual
approach to an IFR flight, unless the pilot requests such an approach.
Separation services (sometimes reduced) from preceding traffic will still be
provided by ATC, and it remains the controller's responsibility to keep the
aircraft in controlled airspace.
Minima requirements: To request a visual approach in airspace with ICAO rules:
i. The field is in sight and expected to remain in sight for the rest of the
approach (pilot's discretion).
ii. If the field is not in sight: the reported ceiling must be above the initial
approach
altitude and there must be enough visibility to see the runway at that
distance.
Missed Approach: A visual approach in ICAO has no missed approach segment. It is
simply not defined. However, some European airlines suggest that their pilots do the
following missed approach procedure from a visual approach: In ICAO operations
the missed approach from a visual approach is to join the traffic pattern on a left
downwind at 1500 feet AGL (jets and turboprops) or at 1000 feet AGL (piston), not the
instrument (missed) approach procedure you were perhaps planning.

So it seems that we are all wrong because its not even defined it really is just make it up as your going along. Unless anyone has any better info I for one am going to start asking what the missed approach is after accepting a visual.

saintex2002

19th Sep 2009, 15:28

So it seems that we are all wrong because its not even defined ...

MJ, I told you that... ;);) ... btw in wich ICAO Doc. did you find your info ??...
Or did you find that in a non ICAO branded manual ??..

mad_jock

19th Sep 2009, 15:44

I got it from a FAA v ICAO differences document by some bloke in the US

Unfortunately I shut the window its a bitch to find it.

Its in annex 2 but that seems to be a world secret and can only be purchased

saintex2002

19th Sep 2009, 16:19

I'd forgotten that FAA mentioned it... so Canada plus one...
I'll check again ICAO annex2....
See u... MJ...

saintex2002

19th Sep 2009, 16:45

Nothing in ICAO Annex2 nor in ICAO Acfts Operations Doc.8168...

OzExpat

20th Sep 2009, 03:10

Errr... if it isn't defined by ICAO, why would you expect to find anything about it in any of their SARPs? :confused:

bayete

22nd Sep 2009, 08:23

The problem with getting info from "some bloke in the USA" is you can't really rely in the information.
In AIM/FAR 2008 by Charles Spense (link below found on Google Books) in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, he quotes "Visual Approach [ICAO]: An approach by an IFR flight when either part or all of an instrument approach is not completed and the approach is executed in visual reference to terrain." So maybe it is defined by ICAO.
He unfourtunately does not say where he gets his reference from.
William Kershner seems to say the same in his book "The Instrument Flight Manual" but I can't see the whole page to see if he has a reference.

If the definition is correct it still does not help us with the answer to the question because if the instument approach is not completed does that mean it is no longer valid and therefore there is no missed approach to be flown?

Off topic, I would suggest to anyone who writes their own 'Quick notes', 'Blue Brain' etc to write the reference for any info/quotes/rules in the margin for ease of updating and for anyone else that you share you guides with. Eg Ops Man Pt 1 CH7

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2009, 08:35

If you have a look in the ATC section a controller who is involved with sorting these sorts of issues out gave some information about what the current state of play is.

The international federation of Air traffic controllers is looking at the subject. After it being discussed its been kicked to committee and the recommendations being presented this year.

There really is no set rules. So if you don't like suprises while your going up like a fart in the bath while reconfiguring you have to ask what the missed approach is.

flyr767

23rd Sep 2009, 06:45

I love how people on PPRuNE make things so utterly complicated. It's quite simple. Go around procedure on runway heading and ADVISE ATC!!! How hard is that? Once you tell them you're missed they'll give an altitude and heading if applicable. Wow that was easy.

bayete

23rd Sep 2009, 08:54

flyr767: "I love how people on PPRuNE make things so utterly complicated. It's quite simple. Go around procedure on runway heading and ADVISE ATC!!! How hard is that? Once you tell them you're missed they'll give an altitude and heading if applicable. Wow that was easy."

In your opinion yes it is that easy (by the way I agree with you, however if in doubt I might get a heads up from ATC first) but there are many people who believe that the correct course of action is to fly the missed approach procedure for the instrument approach for that runway.

This discussion is to try and find out why there are differing opinions and which is correct. Where do you get the information that your way is the correct way? Do you have a reference?

If you look at the ATC forum thread you see that this is being discussed at higher levels than ours and has not been resolved.

BOAC

23rd Sep 2009, 10:01

the correct course of action is to fly the missed approach procedure for the instrument approach for that runway.You and others have missed the point that on a visual approach there IS no "instrument approach for that runway". How would you cope at an airfield with several IAPs, each with different g/a procedures and none of which you have flown?

The only time your proposal is valid is when an aircraft flies an IAP, declares 'visual' and without delay announces 'going around' when I'm sure all controllers would expect what you say. Assuming that the intention of flying a 'visual approach' is to land at that airport rather than push off into possible IMC and the bundu, the visual circuit is where you would go. Initially straight ahead, talk to ATC with intentions, and they will let you know if that is possible or not, in which latter case they would probably 'direct' you.

flyr767

23rd Sep 2009, 10:49

Where I'm coming from is as such. When you accept a visual approach it is still an IFR procedure regardless of the fact you're using your Mark III eyeballs to position yourself for a safe landing. You're not flying a precision or non precision approach, you flying a VISUAL approach usually with a vector towards the airfield. Once you're cleared for that approach you're pretty much on your own to make the field. There is no published missed approach and even published visuals rarely if ever have some procedure in the event of a go around (I've never seen one with a published missed) so it simply defaults to a climb on runway heading and a timely call to ATC. What else is there to do?

I don't believe entering the pattern without ATC telling you to do so is the correct way to go. You have no assurance of clearance from traffic and obstacles. Generally the patch directly on runway heading is the safest bet and most likely where ATC would expect you to be on the missed following a visual approach. I will try to find some sources to back my claims for you.

Edit:

Going through a United FOM I happen to have it quotes:

"A visual approach is not an instrument approach procedure (IAP), and therefore does not include a missed approach segment or procedure. If a go-around is required, further clearance or instructions are issued by ATC to ensure separation from other IFR airplanes."

So stand by my acsertation to remain on runway heading while climbing and advise ATC. In my experience ATC will generally vector you in way that resembles a traffic pattern and give you a base turn to final. Or bring you all way to the back of the sequence. Hopefully it's the former. :}

BOAC

23rd Sep 2009, 11:27

Just noticed that the OP asked about altitude not route :ugh:- I should add, then, that the answer to his question is 'yes' - I would plan on 'normal' circuit height unless otherwise advised, exactly as L6 says - the main thing is not to stuff on full power and scream on up to MSA (unless you need to, of course...:))

bayete

23rd Sep 2009, 14:24

BOAC you miss read my post.
You and others have missed the point
I said I agree with flyr767 but that there are many people who believe that the correct course of action is to fly the missed approach procedure for the instrument approach for that runway.

And as I said in an earlier post I would expect a visual of some sort with clarification from ATC.

BOAC

23rd Sep 2009, 15:07

bayete - my apologies - as you say, delete 'you and':ugh:

SR71

23rd Sep 2009, 16:10

Aren't we making this a lot more complicated than need be?

A case of some common-sense which includes, if there is any ambiguity, telling ATC what you intend to do, or asking them what they want you to do?

After all, if you're "visual", chances are good that whether or not you proceed to the pattern altitude or the MA altitude you should otherwise be able to see where you're going and therefore avoid both other traffic and obstacles...especially if you've got TCAS and EGPWS as well.

In addition, I have a problem with, having declared being "visual", then placing the aircraft in a position where I'm no longer visual. I can see all kinds of folk getting upset about that, rightly so IMHO. In this case, I'd be onto tower in advance seeking clarification one way or the other.

As for tower not knowing what you're doing, can't they look out of the window as well?

So if you're shooting visuals when the cloudbase is below MA altitude I can see things become a little problematic.

As for the EO case, 9.G said it all...you have to have an idea of both your EO landing performance and your EO GA performance a priori with the situation becoming potentially more and more serious as you proceed below various minima.

SR71

23rd Sep 2009, 16:30

FWIW, a local ATCO says, his expectation would be, here in the UK, that I follow the IAP MA.

galaxy flyer

23rd Sep 2009, 22:34

Just a Yank, but I am confused about MA from a Visual--how much of a problem is this? IF one is cleared for the visual, why would you miss? It is VISUAL! Now a contact approach is a very different animal.

If tower has to deny a landing clearance, they will provide a procedure, usually back to radar at busy airports or 'up for the visual" at pattern altitude.

Not flying visuals because one cannot establish a missed approach procedure is a bit silly. BTW, ask a US controller for a miss procedure on a visual would get you gales of laughter.

GF

Pugilistic Animus

23rd Sep 2009, 22:54

Go around in the pattern:confused:

Nimer767

25th Sep 2009, 12:15

you will have to refer to your company SOP , But normally you will join the normal Traffic pattren !

BOAC

25th Sep 2009, 12:41

IF one is cleared for the visual, why would you miss? - could it be that one might just be one of those very few ones who just occasionally make mistakes?:ugh:

jcbmack

25th Sep 2009, 18:54

just circle back.

DFC

26th Sep 2009, 09:25

In 800m RVR when there is no circling procedure?

How does that work then?

BOAC

26th Sep 2009, 11:03

Bruce Waddington

26th Sep 2009, 17:28

Kuobin,

What altitude to set indeed !

There is quite a variety of opinions but here is what I would do based upon US and Canadian rules.

At a controlled airport I would set the missed approach altitude associated with the IFR approach in use for the runway I was landing on. Then in the event that I am directed by the controller to "follow the published missed approach" (highly unlikely by the way) the altitude alert is already set. If the controller tells me to fly to another altitude I reset the altitude alert. Note that if I was doing a visual to a runway with no IFR approach I would set circuit altitude.

At an uncontrolled airport I would set the circuit altitude, normally 1000 feet above airport elevation unless otherwise documented.

The only requirement in Canada and the US is;

1. At a controlled airport, follow ATC direction, and

2. At an uncontrolled airport, remain clear of cloud and land as soon as possible.

Since the US and Canadian authorities give no other guidance than that we are talking about technique, not the 'law'.

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

Capt Groper

26th Sep 2009, 20:11

1500' AAL for Jet A/C
1000' AAL for non Jet A/C

DFC

26th Sep 2009, 21:25

It works because one assumes that if one is performing a visual cct in 800m RVR:-

1) You are either good or stupid.
2) If you can see to do the cct, what is wrong with a g/a to another? If you cannot see to do the cct.....................wtf are you there?
3) You are not 'circling'

Who said anything about flying a visual circuit. It could be a visual straight-in approach.

Just because the airport is reporting an RVR of 800m it does not mean that during the approach you can not be in VMC and visual all the way to touchdown.

Dead right we are not circling, circling requires a visibility of 2400m in a CAT C aircraft but if we can satisfy the requirements we can make a visual approach in something less than that.

Imagine Instrument approach is an ILS to 27 but the wind favours 09 which has no approach procedure. You are approching from the west and there is some sea harr to the east partially encroaching on the aerodrome. The RVR is 1400m - good enough to

a) complete a straight-in ILS

or

b) a visual straight-in 09 - if you can satisfy the requirements for a visual approach

but not a circling approach !!

So what do you do if you have to make a missed approach at 100ft on final 09?

I will say it again - visual approach is one where it is made up of random parts - nothing prevents it being briefed. There is no defined missed approach so it would be good practice to find out and brief in advance what all the team expects. By team I mean ATC as well as your nearest colleague.

BOAC

26th Sep 2009, 22:22

Well, I call that 'reductio ad absurdum' - and I debated not replying, but....

1) Unless you are suggesting Leuchars with both ILS and PAR off on 09 when ATC (in my day) may have allowed that, I cannot see any civil airport doing so in that weather. "Runway in use 27 - take it or leave it". SATCO would be having kittens. Keflavik or others in reasonable weather, yes

2) If 1) pertains, then obviously I would establish what ATC wanted for a g/a since I would be flying against the traffic/runway in use, and would in any case probably NOT be able to g/a into a visual circuit with your quoted 'Haar' over Tentsmuir. Again, since it would be a g/a into an ILS 27, ATC need to be in the loop.

Altogether, DFC, a bit of a wildie!

(In fact, I'd probably have been off to Lossie or Edinburgh on the usual 'fumes':))

Bruce Waddington

27th Sep 2009, 02:04

Capt Groper,

Documentation please !

In Canada and the US ( I do not know about JAA or CAA rules) the applicable AIMs make it clear that circuit altitude is 1000 above airport elevation unless otherwise noted.

Others pilots I know think 1500 for jets but no one can document it. Flight Safety apparently teach 1500 for jets, but again no documentation except their own manuals.

Anyone ?

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

jcbmack

27th Sep 2009, 02:36

I will conitnue to read this thread and learn more.:ok:

9.G

27th Sep 2009, 07:26

I'm with you BOAC on this one. Once again the purpose of a visual ATC-wise is to place an aircraft onto position, preferably on final, from which the pilot will be able it to complete the valid INSTRUMENT procedure completely or partially by visual means. Once reported visual with the RWY and reasonable grounds exist that safe landing can be accomplished ATCO is simply relieved of responsibility to provide adequate obstacle clearance not the IFR traffic separation though. Flying to any controlled aerodrome there'll be a valid IFR procedure in place let it be PAR SRA. It will be on the ATIS therefore there'll always be a valid IFR procedure. In your example most probably it'll be PAR or SAR approach for 09 therefore there'll be a valid IFR procedure for 09 with it's associated missed approach procedure. Look at it this way you're at the minima, say 400 ft, and you have acquired visual reference and decide to continue so you're visual now aren't you? At 200 ft you've lost it so what you do? You gonna fly a MA for this approach. Same story if you were at 1500 ft and reported visual. Reporting visual doesn't cancel IFR procedure it only shift the responsibility for adequate obstacle clearance from ATCO to the pilot. I've encountered it both were ATC instructed to follow published and RV missed. In reality not a big drama.
Cheers :ok:

BOAC

27th Sep 2009, 08:19

We are a bit 'off track' here, but for Bruce - there is nothing to prevent a circuit at 200' AGL if ATC/airport regulations/obstacles and company limitations do not bar. I'm pretty sure that '1500' feet for jet has grown to become 'folk-lore' through the choice of it in standard circuit training in the sim and for real. 1000' is equally comfortable and safe for a big jet. As I said watching RAM many years ago scorching around CBA at 500' was enjoyable!

9.g - I have to disagree with you on the connection between an IAP and a visual approach. They are not bound together. The IAP can of course progress into a 'visual' but the visual does NOT depend on an IAP. I have many times arrived visually at varying parts of the visual circuit, anywhere between overhead and final, at different speeds and altitudes, at airfields all over the world - often without any form of IAP. All with the approval and knowledge of the relevant ATC unit. Without cancellation of IFR the responsibility for separation from traffic remains, of course, with ATC, but a simple check with them about your intentions - "xxx going around, request left-hand circuit" should cover that and you SHOULD yourself also be aware of the position of any possible conflicting traffic.

9.G

27th Sep 2009, 08:49

BOAC, true visual doesn't depend on IAP and one can fly visual from any possible direction and altitudes. The IAP can of course progress into a 'visual' but the visual does NOT depend on an IAP. surely not neither does it cancel an IFR procedure in place for the RWY. In other words you see the RWY on downwind 27 at 5000 ft and report visual to the tower. ATIS promulgates ILS 27 in use. ATC clears you for a visual 27. So far so good. You being able to land on 27 by visual means doesn't cancel a valid ILS 27, doesn't it? Neither does it convert your flight into a VFR one, doesn't it? Consequently in my understanding one has got two choices for MA either published MA for the IAP in place or RV. That's the whole point. The only time when there's no valid IAP is when one flies to uncontrolled aerodrome in which case IFR will have to be canceled and change of rules from IFR to VFR will have to be accomplished. In this case the way to assure traffic separation is to stick to the VFR traffic pattern e.g 1500 ft LT. Lack of clear explanatory material causes lots of confusion on this topic. So far I haven't seen anyone in EU trying to join a VFR traffic circuit after MA.
Cheers.:ok:

BOAC

27th Sep 2009, 09:04

ATIS promulgates ILS 27 in use. ATC clears you for a visual 27. - 'ATIS' does not constitute a clearance - it is 'I' - 'Information'. If the clearance is for Visual that is it. Not sure what 'RV' is? Also I'm having a bit of trouble with the punctuation here "surely not neither does it cancel an IFR procedure"?
So far I haven't seen anyone in EU trying to join a VFR traffic circuit after MA. - bearing in mind that:-
1) A visual these days:{
2) A G/A from such

is an extremely rare event I am not really surprised!

9.G

27th Sep 2009, 09:37

Ok let's start from the scratch once again.
Visual approach: An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain. In our case it'd be ILS 27 which would partly or completely completed by visual means. The mere fact of one flying visual with terrain doesn't waive ILS in use and flying under IFR bounds one to the published procedures unless RV. (radar vectored). Well those of us involved in training do shoot quite few MA and so far it was either published MA or RV. I'm having a bit of trouble with the punctuation here "surely not neither does it cancel an IFR procedure"? IOTW clearance to execute visual doesn't waive IAP in place for this RWY and IF rules are to be followed. ATCO guys would shed some light on it I'm sure about it.
Cheers:ok:

mad_jock

27th Sep 2009, 10:40

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/388797-missed-approach-off-visual-approach.html#post5202084

This was the post that seemed to answer the question when I asked in the ATC forum.

BOAC

27th Sep 2009, 11:39

9.g - what you guys do in 'training' is not really relevant here - as we know 'training' and reality can often be widely separated.

If I may borrow your (EU OPS) quote and your highlighting?“Visual approach”. An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain. In our case it'd be ILS 27 which would partly or completely NOT completed by visual means.

It is becoming sadly apparent that those in the flying world and ATC who cannot live with sensible, intelligent and negotiated solutions to problems will need yet another RULE to cover this! :ugh:

OzExpat

27th Sep 2009, 12:38

It seems to me that everyone is trying to reinvent the wheel here. If you are making a visual approach, you are demonstrably NOT making an instrument approach. To my mind, this only happens when you can actually SEE the runway, from a goodly distance away - I'm talking at least 10 or even up to 30 miles, depending on your knowledge of the place!

So, you've put yourself in the situation and called "visual" and ATC has said (maybe to themselves... bloody ripper!), then cleared you for visual approach, call tower... blah, blah, blah. Okay, so far so good.

So there you are, configuring for the final approach, going through final approach and pre-landing checks. However, Murphy's Law intervenes...

1. Too hot and too high... oops!
2. Dumass Airlines taxies onto the runway in the mistaken belief that they have a clearance... oops!
3. Any other kind of... ooops!

So now, as the Captain of the inbound aircraft, who's been given clearance to land by the Tower (after transfer for Radar/Approach/WhatBloodyEver), there is now a very valid reason why you can't land on the runway ahead of you, in weather conditions that are really good for visual approach, etc. What are you going to do?

This is the dilemma at the heart of the problem, so far as I'm concerned. The fact is that I will ALWAYS call visual as soon as I can see the runway, in wx conditions that assure me of continued visual reference - this is SOP, so far as I'm concerned and I will ALWAYS insist that PF briefs for this and any go-around for the unforeseen!

The brief is, essentially, to climb straight ahead on runway heading, call ATC - if they haven't already seen the manoeuvre and already done the right thing by giving instructions that we've been too busy to acknowledge. After whatever R/T exchange has been necessary, we FOLLOW the instructions from ATC to help us avoid traffic conflicts.

Heaven knows we're MUCH too busy, at least initially, to concentrate on TAWS or EGPWS, or anything like that - we aviate, navigate and communicate! Why is that so difficult? If anyone needs a book reference for that, look up your own local airmanship guide! You DON'T depend on ATC for your initial action or even your initial navigation.

How long will it take you to get the g/a going along runway heading, to sort out the aeroplane and it's navigation straight ahead - and then talk to ATC? I'll bet that you're all switched on enough for that all to happen while your aeroplane is within the control zone airspace.

Yes, in MY brief for a visual approach, I set the SOP altitude for the traffic pattern, for the g/a. I cancel that when it is certain that I can land - and I can SEE other aircraft on the ground are going to be clear of the runway. That too, is SOP, and part of the approach briefing.

Let's not try to reinvent the wheel here. Let's just be professionals and make some PROFESSIONAL decisions that will keep us and our pax alive. That decision starts at the point where we decide to call "visual", in the interests of saving the company some time - and money. Let's not go off half-cocked in this!

9.G

27th Sep 2009, 13:47

It is becoming sadly apparent that those in the flying world and ATC who cannot live with sensible, intelligent and negotiated solutions to problems will need yet another RULE to cover this! True... Many possible variations of which part may have been completed which not etc.
Here is the answer from Heathrow director It depends on what sort of airfield you mean. At a small airfield with light traffic it may just mean a turn back into the visual circuit. At a large airport ATC will issue appropriate instructions to sequence the aircraft for a further approach. So there we go.
Cheerio :ok:

hawk37

27th Sep 2009, 14:38

"In Canada and the US ( I do not know about JAA or CAA rules) the applicable AIMs make it clear that circuit altitude is 1000 above airport elevation unless otherwise noted.

Others pilots I know think 1500 for jets but no one can document it. Flight Safety apparently teach 1500 for jets, but again no documentation except their own manuals."

Bruce, haven't really been following this thread, but does this address the 1500 ft?

Far 91.126 (e) Minimum altitudes when operating to an airport in Class D airspace. (1) Unless required by the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria, each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane must enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above the elevation of the airport and maintain at least 1,500 feet until further descent is required for a safe landing.

Applies to class C and B too, if I read it correctly.

saintex2002

27th Sep 2009, 16:00

So now, as the Captain of the inbound aircraft, who's been given clearance to land by the Tower (after transfer for Radar/Approach/WhatBloodyEver), there is now a very valid reason why you can't land on the runway ahead of you, in weather conditions that are really good for visual approach, etc. What are you going to do?

Dear, OzExpat, the problem is not what are you going to do ?..., the problem, dear OzExpat, is what are you expected to do ?... , going around during a visual approach, following, of course as a very pro.airman like you certainly are, an indisputable published rule well known by all of us, the others pilots in the loop, and the worldwilde ATCO community...
So to that problem : what are you expected to do ?... , dear, OzExpat, there is no ICAO ruled answer... for the time being...and you are still free to perform as aware as you are, going around during a visual...hope Murphy doesn't blind your R/T too... ;););)

...And btw, methinks the wheel is still spinning round... and the sun going down.... :ok::ok::ok:

9.G

27th Sep 2009, 17:08

ICAO —

1.
Initial Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure between the initial approach fix and the intermediate approach fix or, where applicable, the final approach fix or point.
2.
Intermediate Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure between either the intermediate approach fix and the final approach fix or point, or between the end of a reversal, race track or dead reckoning track procedure and the final approach fix or point, as appropriate.
3.
Final Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure in which alignment and descent for landing are accomplished.
4.
Missed Approach Procedure — The procedure to be followed if the approach cannot be continued.

USA —

1.
Initial Approach — The segment between the initial approach fix and the intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is established on the intermediate course or final course.
2.
Intermediate Approach — The segment between the intermediate fix or point and the final approach fix.
3.
Final Approach — The segment between the final approach fix or point and the runway, airport or missed approach point.
4.
Missed Approach — The segment between the missed approach point, or point of arrival at decision height, and the missed approach fix at the prescribed altitude.

VISUAL APPROACH (ICAO)
An approach by an IFR flight when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed in visual reference to terrain.

VISUAL APPROACH (USA)
An approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and under the control of the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above 1000 feet and visibility of 3 miles or greater.

Methinks that explains different views on the topic on both sides of the pond.
Cheerio :ok:

saintex2002

27th Sep 2009, 17:32

Methinks that explains different views on the topic on both sides of the pond.
Cheerio :ok:

Methinks, :=:=:=...
There is no published MAP when on visual approach...
That's the rule...if you want to be purely ruled....

9.G

27th Sep 2009, 17:42

Excerpt from 4444
6.5.3 Visual Approach

6.5.3.1
Subject to the conditions in 6.5.3.3, clearance for an IFR flight to execute a visual approach may be requested by a flight crew or initiated by the controller. In the latter case, the concurrence of the flight crew shall be required.
6.5.3.3
An IFR flight may be cleared to execute a visual approach provided that the pilot can maintain visual reference to the terrain and;
1.
the reported ceiling is at or above the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment for the aircraft so cleared; or
2.
the pilot reports at the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment or at any time during the instrument approach procedure that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed.
6.5.3.4 Separation shall be provided between an aircraft cleared to execute a visual approach and other arriving and departing aircraft.

We'll get there sooner or later...:ok:

saintex2002

27th Sep 2009, 17:51

...So, 9.G, where do you find the definition of the G/A leg during a visual approach in that ICAO Doc.4444 extract ?...

saintex2002

27th Sep 2009, 18:27

I maintain, as I said it in the other ATC Issues thread, when you decide to begin a G/A leg during a visual approach, you have, from my POV, no more than the three following possibilites :
1.You fly what you want...thinking you are still IFR and maybe not really alone under your beautiful sky...
2.You ask ATC what you will have to fly if you think that this cloud layer...this AFmachin on the RWY...this Follow Me car... etc... etc...
3.You fly following the G/A route clearance done effectively by this very pro.ATCO when he clears you for that Visual Leg of the published IAP you didn't entirely follow...remaining under Instrument Flight Rule...
That's purely a technical or professional way to answer the beginning thread question of " what altitude will you...etc...etc ??? " ...and surely not ICAO ruled...because there is no rule since the visual approach clearance appears in our air world...
Hope that suits u... 9.G... ;)

9.G

27th Sep 2009, 20:11

saintex2002, I agree with all your solutions. Look in practice it's really no big deal and resolved fairly quickly by prompt instruction of ATC. What we were trying to do here was to get to the grounds of the theory nothing more. I wish we in EU had it same clear cut way as the guys overseas but we don't. So taking bits and bytes from here and there we draw conclusions. Every theory has the right to exist till proven wrong. I'll try to put puzzle pieces together daring a POV:
4444 underpins the existence of a valid IAP for the RWY, as we saw earlier, implying consequently a published MAP. The definition of VA implies a partial completion or not completion of IAP. Logically the not completed part would be the final, wouldn't it? We also learned that ICAO doesn't bound MA procedure to the existence of MAP, it's rather a genuine term. It's simply what one has to fly if not able to land as per ICAO. The last stroke is the notion of VA not canceling IFR nor converting it to VFR. Resolving the mystery of dubious spread across definitions it's seems like the published MA remains a valid option. Though as we learned from Mr. heathrow director RV is preferable choice. You've mentioned comm failure on final while visual, haven't you? So what would you fly LH traffic pattern or published comm failure procedure for the RWY in use?
Cheers :ok:

DFC

28th Sep 2009, 22:45

The whole problem is that there can not be a defined missed approach procedure - or altitude for a visual approach.

Many people seem very confused and unaware of the fact that a missed approach procedure is unique to and forms part of a specific approach procedure.

Just because;

at abc airport,

The ILS missed approach is straight ahead to 3 dme then the 180 radial to xyz vor climbing to 3000ft

and

The VORDME missed approach is straight ahead to 3 dme then the 180 radial to xyz vor climbing to 3000ft.

and

The NDB missed approach is straight ahead to 3 dme then the 180 radial to xyz vor climbing to 3000ft.

(The DME ident being common to all procedures)

It does not mean that the missed approach procedures are the same.

They are not. In fact they are very different. The criteria for obstacle clearance and tracking and the area within which obstacles have to be cleared is different in each of the above cases, as it the tollerance in position for the definition of the missed approach point.

Each is unique and part of the overall approach procedure.

Therefore, one can not ever ever fly an ILS to the above runway and complete the VOR missed approach.

So.

If everyone agrees that they would never fly the missed approach of the VOR procedure when making an ILS approach.

Then why do people think that it would be automatically OK to fly the ILS missed approach when the approach was a visual approach.

A visual approach can not have a defined missed approach because there is no way to say at what place and at what altitude the missed approach would be started.

That is why I say, if you don't want a surprise, obtain agreement from all the team as to what will be done if the approach is missed.

--------

The other aspect is that if ATC say follow the missed approach procedure for the VOR then, you have to respect the missed approach procedure as cleared and that includes tracking before the missed approach point (because the obstacle clearance after the point is based on reaching that point on a defined track) and the minimum level at the missed approach point (because again that is what obstacle clearance is absed upon) and performance i.e. be able to complete the missed approach as cleared.

No who is going to say - whay bother just do a visual missed approach? :D

Regards,

DFC

OzExpat

29th Sep 2009, 05:51

Originally posted by saintex2002
Dear, OzExpat, the problem is not what are you going to do ?..., the problem, dear OzExpat, is what are you expected to do ?... , going around during a visual approach, following, of course as a very pro.airman like you certainly are, an indisputable published rule well known by all of us, the others pilots in the loop, and the worldwilde ATCO community...
So to that problem : what are you expected to do ?... , dear, OzExpat, there is no ICAO ruled answer... for the time being...and you are still free to perform as aware as you are, going around during a visual...hope Murphy doesn't blind your R/T too...
What am I expected to do? I'm expected to be able to think for myself, use initiative whenever necessary, make sound command judgements and act professionally - it's part of what I'm paid to do. This is what comes first when one thinks about the concept of aviate, navigate, communicate - or do you really prefer that ATC flies your aeroplane for you? Perhaps you are being paid for something different, dear saintex?

As for R/T problems, yes that can happen anywhere. If all the radios die at the same time, I look for ATC light signals while the PNF uses a mobile phone to call the Tower... :} No, that's not in any rulebook I've ever read, but it IS part of the lateral thinking that is required of a pilot who is in command! But I'm sure you knew that...

Bruce Waddington

29th Sep 2009, 06:14

Hawk37

Many thanks for the reference to the FARs !!

On a the quick read through it does seem that the circuit altitude in USA Class D airspace is 1500 above airport elevation for large/turbojet aircraft. It also seems that 91.129 is applicable in Class C and B airspace.

Good info and thanks for pointing me in the correct direction. I want to do some more digging and will get back to the thread when I have finished.

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

9.G

29th Sep 2009, 06:26

DFC I i give it a benefit of a doubt and leave it at that. Perhaps you're right don't know. However so far I haven't seen anyone setting 1500 ft in the ALT shooting a visual, everyone was preselecting ALT for a published one whatever it might be. Again doesn't mean we're right, who knows.
Funny enough the subject of comm fail was brought up. We're all aware bout the comm fail procedure VMC IMC etc.

For the purpose of these procedures ATC will expect and IFR flight following the ATS route structure to adopt the IMC procedure as detailed below. If there is an overriding safety reason, the pilot may adopt the VMC procedure.

Aircraft inbound to London (Heathrow)

1.In the event radio communication failure occurs before ETA, or before EAT when this has been received and acknowledged, pilot inbound to London (Heathrow) Airport will:
–fly to the appropriate holding point as detailed in the STAR;
–hold until the last acknowledged ETA plus 10 minutes, or EAT when this has been given;
–then commence descent for landing in accordance with specified procedures and effect a landing within 30 minutes, or later if able to approach and land visually.
2.If the radio communication failure occurs after aircraft has reported to ATC on reaching holding point, pilot will maintain the last assigned level over the holding point until:
–ATA over holding point plus 10 minutes, or 10 minutes after the last acknowledged communication with ATC, whichever is the later, or
–EAT, when this has been received and acknowledged;
–then commence descent for landing in accordance with specified procedures and effect a landing within 30 minutes, or later if able to approach and land visually.
3.If radio communication failure occurs during initial approach under radar vectoring, the procedures to be followed are shown on Jeppesen 10-1R chart.
4.If radio communication failure occurs following a missed approach the aircraft will:
–fly to the appropriate missed approach holding point at 3000ft;
–complete at least one holding pattern;
–then commence descent for landing in accordance with specified procedures.

I presume that can be the case after one's cleared for a visual. Why is it ATC prefers one to follow published MA for comm failure opposite to LT 1500 ft waiting for the light beam?

Oz great idea with the mobile hopefully the I phone isn't gonna give up on us at that very important moment.
Cheerio gents :ok:

bayete

29th Sep 2009, 09:58

9G:
Why is it ATC prefers one to follow published MA for comm failure opposite to LT 1500 ft waiting for the light beam?

Because you may be IMC during the comm failure and unable to fly a visual at 1500' which means it is the simplest option as a catch all for all cases.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just snot in down the deadside at 500' waggling wings and pumping the throttle, breaking downwind assuming the callsign "speechless 1 is this a practice?" :ok:

potteroomore

29th Sep 2009, 11:19

It has been more than 15 years since my incident and after running into that particular check airman, we had a lengthy discussion over at Ms Poh Eng's cafe at the MAS training centre. The issue of visual missed approach altitude was certainly the core of our discussion; well, I agreed with him that in the absence of any unique local procedures as per AIP one should initially maintain local visual circuit altitude until tower clears otherwise. In any visual missed approach, it is imperative to contact tower ASAP. However this is not always possible due to jammed transmission or tower controller occupied with other tasks in a " one man show " tower operations. Please do not forget there are thousands of airports all over the world who do not have radar, multiple ATCOs etc. At least in that part of the world I operated some 15 years ago, the standard of English was fairly good and the ATC basically stuck to ICAO procedures. Once a pilot accepts a visual approach ( not declaring visual in the midst of an instrument approach ), he/she is solely responsible for traffic and terrain avoidance and stick to that in case of a visual missed approach by joining the visual traffic pattern. What my mistake was just simply by force of habit flying a missed approach based on the ILS instrument approach like in SYD those days........days of flying in an insular environment!

9.G

29th Sep 2009, 13:39

bayete, try to read it again, would you?
For the purpose of these procedures ATC will expect and IFR flight following the ATS route structure to adopt the IMC procedure as detailed below. If there is an overriding safety reason, the pilot may adopt the VMC procedure.
Does it ring the bell? As described in the procedure it may very well happen after being cleared for a visual. Highly unusual constellation indeed nevertheless possible. Methinks, the reason is traffic separation and buying some time to sort out incoming traffic. I'd really love to see A 346 in Heathrow simply making 180 at 1500 ft and coming back to land. Not only will one have to line up at the end of the queue, god knows how many miles into the opposite direction but create probably very uncomfortable situation for Mr. Director. Even VMC I'd adopt comm failure procedure as well as trying to call via iphone or try to catch some wifi network. :}

potteroomore, for the sake of correctness despite being visual ATC is still responsible for traffic separation unless you've reported preceding in sight and cleared to maintain visual separation with it.
Cheers :ok:

BOAC

29th Sep 2009, 13:49

For heaven's sake! Since the OP is from 'Taiwan', why on earth are we wasting space talking about A340's doing visuals at LHR:ugh: When was the last airliner 'visual circuit' flown there - anyone?

For the record, if I had a comms failure in a visual circuit (that's 2 emergencies for some....:)) the VERY LAST THING I would want to do was to fly some ding-bat missed approach for a procedure I haven't got anywhere near to and carefully manoeuvre myself back into busy airspace and possible IMC without comms:ugh:

bayete

29th Sep 2009, 15:47

9.G
Sorry, I was responding to your last but one sentance where I read it as a query as to why ATC prefer you to fly the MA for lost comms as opposed to a left turn at 1500' into the visual cct.
Why is it ATC prefers one to follow published MA for comm failure opposite to LT 1500 ft waiting for the light beam?

Is that not what you were asking? If so my answer remains: The IMC procedure is a catch all that works both for Inst Apps and Vis Apps.
Of course if there is an overriding safety reason you may elect to do something else.
No bells ringing I'm afraid, I never suggested anything contrary to what you have highlighted in red text. My last sentance was a jest harking back to the good old days when going through training and when I was an instructor; when the easiest way to join was simulated loss of RT where you didn't need to make any calls/deal with ATC and could run into the CCT taking into account of other traffic and land without speaking to anyone. (Yes one may have given ATC the heads up that your recovery to base would be loss of RT)

I agree with BOAC that if you were in a visual CCT I would stay there, you may not even have an approach plate out with the MAP on it. But visual CCTs are a little different from a visual appraoch after and IFR procedure.

I'm still going with the answer-Confirm with ATC what they want you to do.
As we can quite clearly see from this thread, there does not appear to be an answer either way. Controllers are even saying it depends on where you are, what size of airfield etc. So asking has got to be the safest and easiest way.

9.G

29th Sep 2009, 18:00

Jeppesen 10-1R chart. is readily available in the trip kit any time. No brainier at all. Gents lets read carefully the statements and skip the assumptions if we opt to have sensible discussion, shall we? At no point was I talking bout being in the circuit but after being radar vectored. Not so long ago I recall ILS 26 being inop in LTN. Upon initial contact approach controller called for RV for a visual 26. That was a very real situation. Now picture this you're on RV for a visual 27R in LHR and lost 2 way comm. No doubts one will continue and try to land. What if you missed? That's my initial situation. Why am getting on that? Coz if it was taken for granted that once shooting visual one is expected to join LT 1500 ft visual circuit in case of MA why to bother with all this comm fail procedures? Simply punch in 7600 and if missed join the LT circuit. Am I conveying my point?
LHR however prefers one to join the specific comm fail procedure both VMC or IMC unless blah blah as many others do. Just picture that for a moment aircraft going around in LHR from a visual 27R with 7600 turning left at 1500 ft with 27L being active for departures and all the other traffic lined up behind you. Same story for CDG an so forth. As Heatrhow Director said all depends on the airfield.
One thing is clear nothing is clear. We're in grey area when it comes to visual.
I'm still going with the answer-Confirm with ATC what they want you to do. you have my vote on this one.
Cheerio.

Zippy Monster

29th Sep 2009, 20:02

I'd adopt comm failure procedure as well as trying to call via iphone or try to catch some wifi network.Interesting point... I haven't researched too many places so I don't know how many places this applies, but for my home base (in France), the French AIP charts include the control tower telephone number and highly recommend it should be used via mobile phone in the event of lost comms. Strangely, the Jepp charts we use don't have it, which is not particularly helpful if that's all you have on board the aircraft and you need it...!

This would also suggest they'd prefer you to sod off to the hold even if you are in VMC allowing them time to sort themselves out, rather than you frantically trying to call while you're downwind at 1500ft for another approach.

DFC

1st Oct 2009, 12:05

9.g,

You seem to have confused a UK comms failure requirement for aircraft flying within the ATS route structure with what to do in the vicinity of an aerodrome when making a visual approach.

You have also confused "being visual" with "being in VMC". It is possible to be visual but in IMC and therefore, the IMC requirements apply for communications failure.

There is a procedure for communications failure after missed approach. However, there is also another notified procedure for a communications failure during the approach phase - continue visually if possible.

Again this shows the nature of the visual approach - there is nothing defined.

Should a missed approach be required from a visual approach to 27R at Heathrow following a communications failure, I would be entitled to make a command decision to do what I decided was safe at that time

Remain visual and fly the published procedure via CHT

Remain visual and fly a right hand circuit

or

Go back into IMC and complete the published procedure in IMC.

Much depends on the situation.

If the comms failure occurred enroute, I would be very mindfull of the requirement to sit in the hold until ATA+10, complete the non-radar procedure and land within 30 minutes

It is the "land within 30 minutes" bit that is quite high in my mind - especially the fact that if I can remain visual it does not apply and also once the 30 minutes is up I have (officially) to go somewhere else.

9.G

1st Oct 2009, 14:56

OK short and painless. Have a look at emergency procedures for Germany, will ya?

VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
IFR flights in VMC follow IMC procedures (as described above). I'm not smart enough to insert the page here but I know what I'm gonna do if I fly to FRA.

Well, I wonder what the hell did I confuse this time?

Take care mate.:ok:

DFC

1st Oct 2009, 18:17

Well, I wonder what the hell did I confuse this time?

The fact that one can complete a visual approach in IMC.

The ICAO communications failure procedures and the case of both the UK and Germany getting IFR flights within the system to adopt the IMC procedure regardless of conditions is based on getting the flight to the holding fix of the destination aerodrome in a predictable manner not to help the pilot who has the communications failure but to help predict what they will do so that all the other flights in the system can be separated from the comms failure flight.

Imagine a B737 at FL370 has a comms failure over London and adopts the VMC procedure, screams down through all the levels and lands at Heathrow!! - Probably not a good idea. A better idea to get them to use the IMC procedure which makes it possible to predict what they will do.

After the IAF, or when flying a visual approach there are so many variables in the situation that it is impossible to predict what one would do.

Important things to think about are;

If VMC - Do you want to go back into IMC and route to a fix at a level that other aircraft may be holding?

Do you think that if at Heathrow a B747 starts a missed approach and is heading off to the NW climbing that they stop all further approaches because if that B747 goes to CHT at 3000ft and another aircraft has a comms failure between BNN and landing they will do the same...........the point being that the comms failure procedures do not cater for saving the ass of the pilot who has comms failure but putting something in place that saves the ass of everyone who does not have a comms failure.

Which means that if two or more aircraft have a comms failure it is possible to have a metal rainshower if both follow the procedures exactly.

Therefore the fact that one is making a visual approach has no effect on the comms failure procedures.