Visual approach then GA

[Didi_7]

Hi,



Once after you're cleared for a visual approach, if you need to G/Around, it's supposed to do a visual circuit and try again? Or Perform a IFR GA procedure?


Thanks

[John21UK]

My understanding is that when you are on a visual approach you join the circuit to try again. And on a instrument approach you fly the published missed approach procedure.

[OPEN DES]

There is no published missed approach for a visual approach in IFR, so technically you should ask ATC. However you can reasonably be expected to fly the missed approach of the original instrument approach.

[captjns]

There is no published missed approach for a visual approach in IFR, so technically you should ask ATC. However you can reasonably be expected to fly the missed approach of the original instrument approach.

If not given, when performing a visual approach, it is the responsibility of the crew to request missed approach instructions in the event of a missed approach.

There are airports with precision and non precision approaches for the same runway, but containing different missed approach procedures. That said, Missed approach procedures as published on instrument approach charts are applicable to those procedures only, unless otherwise instructed by ATC.

[flapsupdown]

Good question, one that I've wondered many times actually but never remembered to look up or ask.

Generally, what I find is that if we decide to go-around during a visual approach, ATC will respond with instructions after we advise them of our intention of "going around".

"callsign, going around"

"callsign, when able, turn left heading XXX"

[FlightPathOBN]

Dont most charts show something like, "straight ahead to XXXX" await further ATC instructions?

[aterpster]

Dont most charts show something like, "straight ahead to XXXX" await further ATC instructions?

No, not for visual approaches.

[esreverlluf]

They've thought of this one in the Australian AIP;

"In the event that an aircraft is required to go around from a visual
approach in VMC, the aircraft must initially climb on runway track,
remain visual and await instructions from ATC. If the aircraft can
not clear obstacles on runway track, the aircraft may turn."

Beware, however, as the technicalities of a "visual approach clearance" vary widely in different parts of the world.

[Check Airman]

Over here, you can realistically expect instructions from ATC to fly a heading and an altitude.

A few weeks ago doing a visual into JFK, the Captain set 1500ft as the missed approach altitude. I had to chuckle that if we went missed he expected to hear:

"Kennedy Tower, roger. Make left traffic 31L, report turning final"

[aterpster]

Over here, you can realistically expect instructions from ATC to fly a heading and an altitude.

Of course you can. But, it is not automatic and where there are CVFPs it is clearly stated on the chart.

Also, the vector you will receive in the event of a "wave off" may be steeper than the gradient of the instrument approach you traded for the visual approach.

[macdo]

We do plenty of approaches into busy Southern European airports where an initial IFR approach is cancelled and a visual approach is requested and given if appropriate. We always plan to go-around into the IFR go-around from the original briefing because that is what ATC expect us to do. In reality, most of the GA's I have done have resulted in additional instructions (or a request from us) from ATC to do something different, such as a Vector or a clearance to turn downwind into the visual circuit. I think the main point I have seen in practise, is that the standard of ATC varies so greatly across Europe, in the absence of clear instructions, you have to do the published IFR GA to be safe. It is the one action that both the pilots and the controllers can 'see' and understand. It may say something different in the JAA manual, but if you have ever witnessed Palma de Majorca ATC screaming at 20 pilots who are all screaming back in 20 different accents of English during multiple GA's from TS activity over the field, you'll want something solid to hang your hat on!

[Microburst2002]

Asking what to do in case of GA to the ATC is the best thing to do.

As a note, in ATIS information specifies that there is a particular approach procedure in use, usually. This makes me think that the ATC is prepared for that kind of procedure in the event of go arounds, so it would be safe, in my opinion, to do the procedure of the plate.

Of course, ATC will give you specific instructions in most of the cases. If they don't, inform ATC you are doing the approach procedure just in case.

[aviatorhi]

When cleared to land your clearance limit is the runway, you are not cleared for the missed, the pattern or any combination thereof. If you need to go around a new clearance must be given, so follow ATC instructions, most times this will be more similar to a DP than an missed approach procedure as, in busy airspace, you will usually join the departing traffic sequence before returning for another try.

In some situations this may not apply, for instance, if on a "cruise" clearance (US Term, not sure about the rest of the world), if "cleared for approach" etc. etc., essentially, in any situation where the controlled clears you to the field and then terminates the radar service, necessitating you to provide your own navigation, you may fly however you wish to get the aircraft onto the runway, and call the controlled when on the ground. Reason is that ATC has cleared the airspace for you of any traffic they control and you are responsible to keep yourself separated from the rest. As such, if you execute a GA you can simply join the traffic pattern and try again.

[Otto Throttle]

What did you brief as the GA? Subject to ATC approval, that is what you should fly.

[Centaurus]

When cleared to land your clearance limit is the runway, you are not cleared for the missed, the pattern or any combination thereof. If you need to go around a new clearance must be given

Is that one person's personal opinion? Or is this information published somewhere?

Normally a clearance to land automatically assumes a go-around may be necessary for safety reasons. For example a hard bounced landing resulting in a go-around or windshear or a late go-around due excessive crosswind. In those examples there is no time for instance to politely request approval for a go-around from the bounce! :=

[aterpster]

Centaurus (http://www.pprune.org/members/11325-centaurus):

Is that one person's personal opinion? Or is this information published somewhere?
Here is what the FAA’s Aeronautical Information Manual has to say about it:

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 toremain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance.

Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.

Visual approaches reduce pilot/controller workload and expedite traffic by shortening flight paths to the airport. It is the pilot’sresponsibility to advise ATC as soon as possible if a visual approach is not desired

Authorization to conduct a visual approach is an IFR authorization and does not alter IFR flight plan cancellation responsibility.

[sevenstrokeroll]

centaurus , I agree with you. a clearance to land does protect the missed approach airspace (mind you ATC may have to scramble a bit if you do go around)

folks let's review:


IF you get a Visual Approach clearance, you can:

see the airport (or published visual approach procedure navigation checkpoints/landmarks)

or see traffic ahead which is going to the airport you are going to

and can reasonably be expected to maintain visual conditions to the airport/runway. key word: reasonably. (if there is a sudden transdimensional warp which obscures the runway...wellllll)


so...you will stay visual and if you need to abandon the approach / go around

don't sweat it. use your best judgement.

are you suddenly in cloud? well do the most appropriate instrument missed you can UNTIL ADVISED TO DO OTHERWISE...do you really think ATC wants you to run into a mountain? Advise ATC of the situation and when issued "climb and maintain X, fly heading Y, you are magically IFR protected and cleared again

Indeed, in the USA there is an approach called a "CONTACT" approach which while not identical to a visual is close enough to provide guidance to use a published MISSED approach if CONTACT with the runway is lost.

Are you CLEAR and a MILLION? Well, climb to pattern altitude ( I would set 1500 feet above field elevation unless something else is published....for 1500 feet is standard TURBINE powered pattern (you british guys call them CIRCUITS) altitude) And prepare to enter the pattern for a visual return.

by the way LEFT hand pattern is standard here in the USA unless otherwise published.

And yes, after you have started a go around and radioed your intention to ATC, you may rightly expect ammended instructions...and if you don't, STATE YOUR INTENTION to fly published missed for (insert name of approach here).

Be in command of the situation at all times...think ahead...is the wx marginal for a visual? Well, on contact with atc advise : in event of go around we plan to fly published missed for (x) and return for ILS unless you have other clearance for us.

For those who don't know what a contact approach is....well most airlines don't do them anymore...but you need ONE miles (sm) visibility and can navigate to the airport via visual contact with terrain, a standard instrument approach must be available and you must stay clear of cloud... you don't actually need to see the airport at the start of the approach.

[aterpster]

sevenstrokeroll:

centaurus , I agree with you. a clearance to land does protect the missed approach airspace (mind you ATC may have to scramble a bit if you do go around)

And, the heck with the AIM. :) Tell it to the judge.

Contact approaches have long been prohibited for Part 121 carriers except where they train for them and seek an FAA amendment to their Ops Specs.

When I started flying Part 121 we had permissive rules for following known landmarks to the airport that were really crazy. They went away, as I recall, in 1980 or so.

[sevenstrokeroll]

ok aterpster...what about VISUAL APPROACH CLEARANCE is an IFR authorization ...et al?

if you start a visual...great, you should be able to complete a visual

but

if you end up in the clouds again, what happens? well, you haven't CANCELLED IFR have you? Anytime you are VMC, you have to see and avoid other traffic. IF you are back in the clouds you must ADVISE ATC you are no longer VMC and will be handled appropriately

and for that awful moment when you can't get through to ATC due to frequency congestion? what do you do then? You safely navigate the plane away from terrain and the most likely way to do it is using the published missed.


as soon as you re establish contact with ATC and get an altitude to fly and no visual restriction you will be ''protected'' again.

mind you I mentioned most airlines don't do contact approaches anymore (wisely)

and aterpster...the clearance limit thing of the runway...it is for an Instrument approach and THEN YOU are protected in case of a go around/missed.

[sevenstrokeroll]

oh, and you can get a visual approach clearance to any airport, including an airport that doesn't have a published standard instrument approach procedure.


so, you are on your own to aviate, navigate and communicate...don't run into anything as there is no published procedure for anything.

[aterpster]

and for that awful moment when you can't get through to ATC due to frequency congestion? what do you do then? You safely navigate the plane away from terrain and the most likely way to do it is using the published missed.

That would be using emergency authority, which is fine but may result in some unwanted dialogue with the FAA after the fact.

The first "rule" is to not accept a visual approach in weather conditions that are marginal for your aircraft.

[sevenstrokeroll]

aterpster

yes, I agree with you...if you are visual and go into cloud for that moment you are either violating regulations or acting under the emergency authority of the pilot in command. flying a published missed approach would give you terrain clearance. in fact it may be the ONLY way to avoid terrain.

now I also agree with you...don't take a visual if you are in marginal conditions.

and I did mention...if you are taking it in marginal conditions, take command and advise/request alternative instructions.

[Busserday]

Why would you take a visual in anything but good VFR conditions, I am reluctant to do even that, and once you've accepted the visual, you have cancelled your IFR flight plan and are obliged to observe the VFR flight rules. Quite simple.

[deefer dog]

Busserday, I have a feeling that IFR is not actually cancelled when cleared for a visual. IFR is only cancelled when acknowledged with the time of it changing to Special or VFR. If this is accepted, and it is the case in the USA for sure that a visual does NOT cancel IFR, then as the flight is still IFR there is nothing to restrict the missed approach procedure taking you back into the controlled airspace that you may, by descent, have exited for the visual approach.

Having stated this, I really don't know the absolute answer, and I suspect that maybe nobody does. In line with European examining techniques it would therefore make an excellent question to use as a trap!

[Pub User]

Why would you take a visual in anything but good VFR conditions,

You wouldn't, unless you were properly insane.

once you've accepted the visual, you have cancelled your IFR flight plan and are obliged to observe the VFR flight rules

That's not correct. Cancelling an IFR flight plan does not happen incidentally like that; it must be a formal and acknowledged communication.

[Busserday]

Flying with feeling is great it is always a good idea to at least know what rules one is busting:
ICAO approved:
9.6.2 Visual Approach
A visual approach is an approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan (FP), operating in VMC under the control of ATC and having ATC authorization, may proceed to the destination airport.
To gain operational advantages in a radar environment, the pilot may request or ATC may initiate a visual approach, provided that:


the reported ceiling is at least 500 ft above the established minimum IFR altitude and the ground visibility is at least 3 SM;
the pilot reports sighting the airport (controlled or uncontrolled); and
at a controlled airport:



the pilot reports sighting the preceding aircraft and is instructed by ATC to follow or maintain visual separation from that aircraft; or
the pilot reports sighting the airport but not the preceding aircraft, in which case ATC will ensure separation from the preceding aircraft until:



the preceding aircraft has landed; or
the pilot has sighted the preceding aircraft and been instructed to follow or maintain visual separation from it.

ATC considers acceptance of a visual approach clearance as acknowledgement that the pilot should be responsible for:


at controlled airports, maintaining visual separation from the preceding aircraft that the pilot is instructed to follow or from which the pilot is instructed to maintain visual separation;
maintaining adequate wake turbulence separation;
navigating to the final approach;
adhering to published noise abatement procedures and complying with any restrictions that may apply to Class F airspace; and
at uncontrolled airports, maintaining appropriate separation from VFR traffic that, in many cases, will not be known to ATC.

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 crews are required to remain clear of clouds and are expected to complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft crew is required to remain clear of clouds, maintain separation from other airport traffic and is expected to contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. ATC separation from other IFR aircraft is only assured once further ATC clearance has been received and acknowledged by the aircraft crew.
:ugh:

[FlightPathOBN]

Well, while the visual missed procedure is not published, most of the aerodromes follow the IFR procedure on approach, with visual rules until conditions warrant IFR. (everywhere BUT the US)
I supposed that one would review in the brief, what is published for the missed, and at least plan on using whatever that procedure is, to be somewhat assured of the obstacle clearance. Seems like a good situational awareness procedure if nothing else.

[aterpster]

FltPathOBN:

Read the post immediately above you cited from an ICAO document. Reads pretty much like the FAA's AIM:

ICAO Cite:

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 crews are required to remain clear of clouds and are expected to complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft crew is required to remain clear of clouds, maintain separation from other airport traffic and is expected to contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. ATC separation from other IFR aircraft is only assured once further ATC clearance has been received and acknowledged by the aircraft crew.

[FlightPathOBN]

Terpster,

I understand that, in the US.

While in the US 80% of approach procedures are instrument,
worldwide, 80% of approach procedures are visual.

Worldwide, most IAP missed are straight ahead to 4000 and await ATC, unless there are obstacle issues.

Therefore, it seems prudent to look at the published missed approach procedure for the runway, to see if there are any issues.

[aterpster]

I understand that, in the US.

The cite is from ICAO.

[Check Airman]

I'm of the opinion that if the published missed is good enough for IMC, it's good enough for VMC. If I have to abandon a visual, the published missed is the best option until ATC instructs otherwise.

[Busserday]

It is not your airspace and you had best remain visual and if that is not possible why on earth are you accepting a clearance for a visual approach?

[aviatorhi]

You wouldn't, unless you were properly insane.

I'm insane. :eek:

And, no, it's not my own opinion, it's a pragmatic explanation of what to expect when going around off a botched visual. Note that I'm not saying a go around is unacceptable, I'm saying that, when under direct control by ATC, it's best to obtain instructions rather than willy nilly flying the published missed. A perfect example of this is HNL, where flying the published missed off the ILS 4R will put you right into the middle of departing traffic from 8R.

[9.G]

busserday cited Canucks regs not ICAO including the paragraph number.

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;
a. the reported ceiling is at or above the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment for the aircraft so cleared; or
b. 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 arriv- ing and departing aircraft.
6.5.3.5 For successive visual approaches, separation shall be maintained by the controller until the pilot of a succeeding aircraft reports having the preceding aircraft in sight. The aircraft shall then be instructed to follow and maintain own separation from the preceding aircraft. When both aircraft are of a heavy wake turbulence category, or the preceding aircraft is of a heavier wake turbulence category than the following, and the distance between the aircraft is less than the appropriate wake turbulence minimum, the controller shall issue a caution of possible wake turbulence. The pilot-in-command of the aircraft concerned shall be responsible for ensuring that the spacing from a preceding aircraft of a heavier wake turbulence category is acceptable. If it is determined that additional spacing is required, the flight crew shall inform the ATC unit accordingly, stating their requirements.

This is ICAO 4444 doc.

@ aviatorhi, did you ever look outside the window in HNL? There's no other way but to turn right from 04 or 08 for that matter. Have a look at the MSA and terrain picture again, will ya. :ok:

[Busserday]

I am not professing to not fly the appropriate track during a visual go around, what I am saying is that once on a visual approach, and this is getting a little obtuse now, that you are no longer under IFR. Terrain clearance and maintaining VMC until appropriate communication is established is the expectation.
Regardless, choosing to expedite your arrival in less than optimum conditions may increase your work load and leave you in a position that you'd rather not be.
As far as protecting airspace from other traffic, it is not likely that you will have a problem with published missed approaches, just keep in mind you will need a clearance at some point if you wind up IMC.
And yes, been to to HNL many times and didn't expect to go to ALANA or GECKO and hold if I had a pull up on a visual; clear the terrain, likely as per the published miss and anticipate a vector downwind.
Aviate, navigate, communicate.
BD

[9.G]

what I am saying is that once on a visual approach, and this is getting a little obtuse now, that you are no longer under IFR. Absolutely NOT. Flying visual approach you remain under IFR at all times. Terrain clearance is pilot's responsibility separation from other traffic is ATC's responsibility unless pilot requests visual separation from other identified traffic. see 6.5.3.4 Separation shall be provided between an aircraft cleared to execute a visual approach and other arriv- ing and departing aircraft.

No ATC will ever give takeoff clearance on adjacent runway e.g dep 04 HNL till the aircraft shooting a visual on 08 has touched down safely. There's still such thing as separation applicable to any controlled airdrome. :ok:

[Busserday]

Well obviously we are not about to agree on the nuances of this subject.
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
Take the visual and enjoy.:ugh:

[Bengerman]

Check Airman...
I'm of the opinion that if the published missed is good enough for IMC, it's good enough for VMC. If I have to abandon a visual, the published missed is the best option until ATC instructs otherwise.



4th Jun 2012 00:17


So if you flew into, say, Milan Malpensa onto 35R as a visual approach would you do the G/A for ILS Y or ILS Z......they are different!

[aviatorhi]

@ aviatorhi, did you ever look outside the window in HNL? There's no other way but to turn right from 04 or 08 for that matter. Have a look at the MSA and terrain picture again, will ya.

No I never look outside. :rolleyes:

Typically if you go missed with traffic rolling on 08R tower will ask you for heading 090 until clear of traffic then send you southbound.

You could also turn left, but there is a preference to not sent jets over the middle of the island, noise abatement I suspect.

[FlightPathOBN]

I think its simply about situational awareness, if you are aware of the published missed, at least you have some idea of the obstacle clearance and other traffic.
For a while, we were designing RNP finals with a visual missed to get the DA down to something that was reasonable.

[Check Airman]

So if you flew into, say, Milan Malpensa onto 35R as a visual approach would you do the G/A for ILS Y or ILS Z......they are different!

Having never flown in Milan, I can only assume that the ILS X & Y have different minima (as would be the case here in the US). Also assuming that the ATIS would specify X or Y, that's what I'd load in the FMC and what I'd be flying.

I look at it from an ATC perspective. Let's assume worst case scenario, and we lose coms on the GA. If i fly the published missed, at least ATC knows where I'm going, and where to protect airspace. If I decide to do a pattern, there are way more variables. How wide will it be? How long will the final be? What if there are clouds at pattern altitude?

[FlightPathOBN]

Check,

Exactly! If you fly the published missed, you already know you have several protections. You know that you have obstacle protection, and you know that you have airspace protection.
Outside that area, you risk other aircraft and/or terrain.
Why fight it?

[aviatorhi]

that's what I'd load in the FMC and what I'd be flying

The whole point is you're on a visual and flying neither the Y or Z approach, loading the FMS with the "VFR 35R" procedure would be most appropriate.

Let's assume worst case scenario, and we lose coms on the GA. If i fly the published missed, at least ATC knows where I'm going, and where to protect airspace.

A check airman, is unaware of squawking 7600 and looking for light gun signals, finds it safer to barrel headlong into traffic?

From InFO 11003 (FAA AFS-200):

Pilots should be aware of the responsibilities of accepting and flying Visual Approaches, particularly during marginal VMC and notify ATC immediately if:

- Unable to continue following the preceding aircraft
- Unable to remain clear of clouds
- Unable to retain sight of the airport
- A climb is required.

If you don't want to accept the responsibility in marginal conditions then don't accept a visual in marginal conditions. In CAVU conditions I suggest you "see and avoid" and follow the lost comms procedures outlined by the regulating agency. In the case of the FAA that would be see and avoid other traffic, squawk the appropriate code, and return for landing via light gun signals.

[Check Airman]

The whole point is you're on a visual and flying neither the Y or Z approach, loading the FMS with the "VFR 35R" procedure would be most appropriate.

In my operation, we must back up all visual approaches with an IAP. Most of the time, this will be (in order of preference) ILS, RNAV, VOR etc. Is there ever a good reason you would not load an ILS for backup guidance?

A check airman, is unaware of squawking 7600 and looking for light gun signals, finds it safer to barrel headlong into traffic?

Check Airman is my username, not a title. That's not relevant though, as we are discussing basic instrument procedures.

Firstly, I think I would be less likely to find opposite direction tfc on a departure path during a GA. Secondly, light gun signals are difficult to see under the best of conditions. At my shop, after a GA, we have three checklists to run. One being particularly long. On downwind at 1500ft and ~180kt trying to get everything set up and looking out for traffic, I can guarantee you that I probably will miss the light gun.

Like I said before, executing a traffic pattern leads to a whole lot of unknowns, both in the control room and in the cockpit. By following the published missed, we eliminate lots of those unknowns (route, altitude) and perhaps gives us some time to think if there's a holding pattern.

[aviatorhi]

In my operation, we must back up all visual approaches with an IAP. Most of the time, this will be (in order of preference) ILS, RNAV, VOR etc. Is there ever a good reason you would not load an ILS for backup guidance?

Certain aircraft will autotune the ILS for you when selecting the VFR procedure, and nothing prohibits you from tuning it yourself to either the ILS or VOR. The procedure you are authorized for, though, is the visual, not the ILS, RNAV or VOR. Would you fly the ILS procedure when cleared for the VOR?

Firstly, I think I would be less likely to find opposite direction tfc on a departure path during a GA.

Depends on the airport, regardless, all regulatory guidance points you to ask ATC for instructions.

Secondly, light gun signals are difficult to see under the best of conditions. At my shop, after a GA, we have three checklists to run. One being particularly long. On downwind at 1500ft and ~180kt trying to get everything set up and looking out for traffic, I can guarantee you that I probably will miss the light gun.


Sounds more like your shop needs to not inundate the crew with tasks after a simple GA. A proposed change / safety form filed with the offending checklists would be appropriate, task saturation during a sequence of events similar to a takeoff sounds a bit ridiculous.

Furthermore, if you have multiple failures I wouldn't be worried about completing every checklist when I'm directly overhead an airfield. Go around and land.

[Check Airman]

I think we're starting to go in circles here, so let's agree to disagree.:ok:

[sevenstrokeroll]

light gun signals

ok...you just did a visual and a go around and some are worried about being in the clouds.

well, do what ATC expects you to do. come back for the ILS and land...and what do you do if you are in the clouds and can't see the friggin light gun signals? (and can't maintain VMC to go to another field)

you land and hope everyone did their job like they are supposed to. and then you can look for ATC light gun signals for taxi...or just sit in a safe place and GET OUT YOUR CELLPHONE AND CALL THE TOWER.

sure put 7600 in your transponder...declare an emergency first with 7700...ooh and listen to the VOR for ATC transmissions if that works...of course half of you guys don't know what a freaking VOR is now a days.


every so often the go around question comes up with the visual approach....I've been through this for the last 30 years. someone on this forum should call up the FAA and have them spell it out in rregs.

but remember ATC isn't flying your plane (YET) and it is up to you.

I wonder if sully looked for light gun signals....sheesh!!!!!!!!

[galaxy flyer]

This subject is a popular one every year or so. This isn't rocket science, well, maybe it is.

It. Is. A. Visual. Approach. If you can't maintain visual, don't take the clearance. If you have to go around, due to separation or fouled up landing, go! Tell ATC, "on the overshoot, request a closed pattern.". ATC will say, either, "cleared closed, report base" or "maintain runway headin, climb xxxx, call approach on 1xx.xx".

Why would ATC expect you to fly the miss for an approach you didn't fly, nor were cleared for? Only ardent followers of the magenta line need to worry about a procedure that neither exists, nor is needed.

GF

[aviatorhi]

@sevenstrokeroll

There's umpteen thousand scenarios we can play out, the one we were discussing dealt with lost comms, now you wanna talk about clouds, how about we talk about the airport closing or a hijacking attempt on the go or low fuel or the navaid for the missed going INOP on a flight where the GPS was deferred... the list goes on. :rolleyes:

The point is that charging head long into the published missed for an approach you are not cleared for is not the correct course of action.

I'm not going to spend hours going through every possible scenario to satisfy every last possible course of events.

[Tipsy Barossa]

I have found a post from a former colleague who almost had a near miss after going around following a visual approach. This was in a non radar controlled airport somewhere in South East Asia.

potteroomore (http://www.pprune.org/members/309264-potteroomore)

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Uluru
Age: 66
Posts: 10


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!


This topic had been discussed at length in this previous thread. Read here :

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/387120-what-altitude-will-you-fly-after-missed-visual-approach.html

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Can I recommend, from long experience, that you make certain you know what the criteria is, for visual approach for an IFR flight, in the country you happen to be.

Very roughly, there is the ICAO basic criteria, pretty straightforward, then there is US/Canada, almost the same and a bit more flexible than straight ICAO, most other countries except some European more or less ICAO, make certain you understand the UK criteria, including how the landing clearance works and who is responsible for separation on the ground, not just in the air --- actually the same as FAA.

----- and then ----- wait for it, surprise, surprise ------ boom tish!!!! ------- there is Australia.

As will not surprise anybody familiar with the Australia penchant from making something simple bloody hellish complicated ---- there is the Australian visual approach criteria. About the one bit that is simple, if there is an instrument approach for the runway, a aircraft on a visual approach follows the IFR G/A, unless instructed otherwise.

'tis all in the Australian AIP, or the (voluminous) Australia pages of the Jep. WW Text.

NZ has a few little wrinkles, too, usually associated with approach noise minimization. It's as well to be aware, as they do prosecute non-compliance ---- keeps the locals happy with the occasional fierce press release.

Tootle pip!!

[9.G]

Ozzie's rules are as follows:
1.14 GO AROUND AND MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE IN VMC
1.14.1 In the event that an aircraft is required to go around from a visual approach in VMC, the aircraft must initially climb on runway track, remain visual and await instructions from ATC. If the aircraft cannot clear obstacles on runway track, the aircraft may turn.
1.14.2 The exception to the above procedure is that at Sydney visual go-arounds must be carried out:
a. in accordance with the published ILS missed approach procedure for the runway the aircraft is using; or b. as directed by ATC.
1.14.3 In the event an aircraft is unable, or does not wish, to land from an instrument approach in VMC, the aircraft must carry out the published instrument missed approach procedure for the instrument approach being flown, unless ATC directs otherwise.
1.14.4 At Class D aerodromes with parallel runways where contra-rotating circuit operations are in progress, if ATC instructs, or a pilot initiates a go around, the pilot must:
a. commence climb to circuit altitude;
b. position the aircraft on the active side and parallel to the nominated duty runway, while maintaining sepa-
ration from other aircraft; and
c. follow ATC instructions or re-enter the circuit from upwind.

This is getting otta hand here with all wishful thinking. :ok:

[aterpster]

How in blazes did lost comm get into all of this?

[sevenstrokeroll]

aviatorhi

I was being sarcastic.

[aviatorhi]

@seventrokeroll

In which case I sincerely apologize, the internet never really sells the sarcasm.

[FlightPathOBN]

there is the Australian visual approach criteria. About the one bit that is simple, if there is an instrument approach for the runway, a aircraft on a visual approach follows the IFR G/A, unless instructed otherwise.

Exactly, AUS, like most countries (except the US) use VFR 90% of the time, following the same IFR procedures. So when you have to GA, the instructions are already there, straight ahead to 4000, await ATC.

In NZ, Queensland, you just land, no matter what is going on!

[Capn Bloggs]

As will not surprise anybody familiar with the Australia penchant from making something simple bloody hellish complicated ---- there is the Australian visual approach criteria. About the one bit that is simple, if there is an instrument approach for the runway, a aircraft on a visual approach follows the IFR G/A, unless instructed otherwise.

Wrong. Get your facts straight before spouting off about how bad everything Australian is. :cool:

[sevenstrokeroll]

aviathorhi

I accept your gracious appology.

the internet actually stinks and I miss REAL HANGAR FLYING...pilots in the ready room or wherever just talking

[Tarq57]

I work at a single runway aerodrome in class C airspace. The standard missed approach for either runway follows the initial departure track of all the SIDS, due to terrain considerations.

I can tell you that if you are on a visual approach at this aerodrome, and have to go around, and decide to carry out an instrument missed approach, rather than entering the circuit, sooner or later you're likely to get a face full of aeroplane.

If you're on a visual approach, and are unable to enter the circuit from an overshoot, you need to tell ATC. The earlier the better. (Like, when requesting the visual approach.) Waiting till short final is too late.



The appropriate missed approach to perform in this instance would be the MA for the instrument approach broadcast on the ATIS.

The requirements are spelled out in the AIP. (NZ)

If the weather in the circuit area deteriorates during your approach, just make a D and inform ATC asap. Hopefully ATC will have observed the deterioration, and taken it into account.

In a perfect world, the ever-changing matrix we work in would take the regs and procedures into account. Sometimes it doesn't. (Norty weather.) One of the problems inherent in doing every little thing according to some procedure, is that a situation gradually develops that nobody remembers how to use common sense any more.

[bubbers44]

Doing a ndb approach into Rno in A 737 we broke out at minimums and the airliner ahead of us was still on the runway so we were told to go around. I asked if we should do the published ndb missed and they said yes. As I started the left turn they said don,t turn left so I asked what heading they wanted. They didn't respond so we continued the published missed back to the north to avoid close in terrain. I knew another airliner was behind us but also had mountains in front of us. They finally gave us a heading to sort things out. We were not on a visual approach but the ils was out and we followed all the rules and still confusion set in because they forgot the NDB missed was not the same as the ILS missed.

[FlightPathOBN]

Cpt Bloggs is correct, operations in AUS, from virtually any perspective, are based on ops, not regs, and working in Oz, with the forward thinking, makes it one of the best in the world.
Overall acceptance of RNP, GBAS, and other technologies, makes working and operating down under far more enjoyable than any other area of the world.