When is an approach complete?

[Razors Edge]

I would like to survey pilots' opinions as to when a Cat I/II/III approach is complete. Is it at decision height? Is it after the aircraft has landed? Is it as the aircraft exits the runway onto the taxiway system. When is it?

Many thanks.

RE

[Intruder]

When the chocks are in place. The hardest part of Cat III conditions is taxiing.

[fantom]

Int has it.

An approach is complete when the park brake is set.

[exeng]

I don't really agree with both of those replies, however I think I understand where Fantom and Intruder are coming from.

An approach to landing is just that. The approach finishes when touchdown occurs whatever the weather conditions.

During Cat3b conditions rollout guidance is given until the runway turnoff - so one could argue that you have full autoland protection up and until that point.

I agree with the sentiment of the replies in that the very difficult part is then taxiing to the stand.


Regards
Exeng

[737Jock]

The approach ends when the crew selects reverse or selects TOGA. After that the aircraft has either landed or is going-around. But there are only two outcomes to an approach: landing or going around! (not counting crashing ok...)

With regard to cat 3b: landing rollout... Not approach rollout!

Lets not start confusing words here just to sound like smart-a****. For taxying there is a separate word... Taxying! Then there is also parking...

Is this a serious question??? Nobody thinks the work is done after the approach do they? Threats are different in every situation, so don't suddenly treat a cat3b approach the same as low-vis taxying.

[Ollie Onion]

Guess it depends who you talk to. When I did my original IR test around 12 years ago the examiner (UK CAA) was very clear in stating that under the regulations in the UK the 'approaches' were complete at the DA / MDA, if you went around then that was the Go Around Phase, if you continued to land then that forms part of the landing assessment i.e. you can fly a perfect ILS to the DA and then cock up the landing, that would be judged as a pass grade for the ILS but a resit for the landing assesment.

So in answer to the above I would consider that the approach starts at the IAF and finishes at the applicable minima, in the case of a CAT III that would be at wheel touchdown when NO DA.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
There are the practicalities and the legalities.
The UK Examiner is right, but only in terms of the phases of the approach and missed approach. -- effectively the various PANS/OPS segments.
When you are "cleared for approach", the clearance limit is the runway threshold, that is where the approach ends and the landing starts. Sorry I can't give you a reference, time-wise, it is too close to Christmas.
Tootle pip!!

[172_driver]

The approach usually ends with a phone number or a rejection … occasionally you make it to the landing strip :E

[italia458]

Thinking from an examiner standpoint.

There are two phases here: approach and landing.

So where does the approach end and the landing phase begin? For a NPA, the approach ends the moment you leave the MDA for the field, or once you reach the MAP - which is where the missed approach segment starts. For a precision approach or APV, the approach ends once you reach DA(H) - the landing starts if you're visual at that point or the missed approach segment starts at DA(H) with no contact.

[RAT 5]

I would consider consulting the accident/incident report forms. On these it asks you to state the phase of flight. You'll note approach, landing, G/A, taxying and others. I'd agree that the approach phase ends when you descend below the applicable minima. There you enter the landing phase. if you decide not to go below you've entered the G/A phase. After vacating the rwy you've entered the taxying phase.

[777fly]

I think that, in purely technical terms an 'approach', in CAT 1 or better, could be considered to be complete either 1) at the transition to visual reference or 2) at the point of go-round. However, during low vis ops, any approach is part of 'the system' that involves traffic spacing on approach and protection of the ILS signal environment around the runway. I would therefore suggest that under low vis ops your approach is not complete until you either carry out a go round, or until you have cleared the signal protection area around the runway after landing.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Perhaps I didn't make myself sufficiently clear in an earlier post, to here goes again:

Are you referring to the segments of an approach, as per ICAO Doc 8168, or what ATC means by an approach.

Even with doc. 8168 procedures, if you have the required visual segment at minima, whether DA or MDA (not applicable for some Cat 111) the continued descent to the runway is still part of the approach, it is the visual segment of the instrument approach procedure. This just a strue for a straight in as a visual circling as a segment of an instrument approach.

As far as ATC is concerned, "cleared for approach" means your clearance limit is the threshold, until you get a landing clearance.

An instrument approach is only terminated at the DA/MDA if you commence a missed approach.

Thus, it seems to me that the ATC "definition" of approach, and an approach as an an instrument procedure, including the visual segment of the instrument procedure, are entirely consistent.

Tootle pip!!

[italia458]

Even with doc. 8168 procedures, if you have the required visual segment at minima, whether DA or MDA (not applicable for some Cat 111) the continued descent to the runway is still part of the approach, it is the visual segment of the instrument approach procedure. This just a strue for a straight in as a visual circling as a segment of an instrument approach.

I agree that it's the visual segment of the approach, but the visual segment could also start well before the DA or MDA, once the aircraft has visual reference to some part of the runway environment. At some point there needs to be a landing phase!

As far as ATC is concerned, "cleared for approach" means your clearance limit is the threshold, until you get a landing clearance.

I don't think so. When you're cleared for an approach, your clearance limit is the missed approach holding point. Obviously if you receive landing clearance, you're allowed to land if you have the runway visual - obeying all the rules associated.

An instrument approach is only terminated at the DA/MDA if you commence a missed approach.

I don't think so. The instrument approach procedure is terminated at the missed approach holding point, which is the clearance limit. The missed approach point is where you transition from the final approach segment to the missed approach segment - both part of the instrument approach procedure.

[westhawk]

Believe it or not ICAO actually has a document for that! It's called "phase of flight definitions"

This document describes the final approach sub-phase (as part of the IFR approach phase) as ending when the flare begins. Alternatively the missed approach phase may be commenced at any time during the approach. The approach phase begins at the IAF.

Various other entities may have other definitions geared to how they are used. Most of them would seem to be applicable to statistical or accident reporting.

Here's another one:

Airplane Flight Manuals include landing distance tables which describe the landing distance as being from a point 50' above the runway threshold until reaching a complete stop.

I'm sure there must be more...

westhawk

[LeadSled]

westhawk,
Thanks for that, and consistent with what I posted.

Italia 458,
Wherever you fly, your home CAA or whatever, have a look up your AIP, it will probably be there, it is also in Annex 10, Vol.2 somewhere: The phrase "cleared for approach" means the clearance limit is the threshold. Not any other point in space. Look it up to satisfy yourself. This sort of thing is basic, it is not a matter of opinion. You might also find it in UK CAA CAP 413.

The missed approach is certainly part of the "instrument procedure", but it is not part of the "approach". To go a little further back, phases of "approach", the "initial approach", the "intermediate approach", and the (final) approach, from the FAF/FAP, and terminating at the threshold/in the flare. The "missed approach" begins anywhere down the approach that the approach is discontinued, as Westhawk has noted. The design missed approach segment begins at the DH or MDA for the particular approach.

If you think your clearance limit when "cleared for approach" is the missed approach hold (if there is one) try a missed approach somewhere busy, and you will get a practical demonstration otherwise. For planning purposes, most CNS/ATM systems assume an approach will result in a landing, there is simply not enough airspace, at busy airports, to assume every approach will be a missed approach.

Particularly if the same runway is being used for arrivals and departures.

As to "visual segment" of an instrument approach, this is not the same thing as when you become visual somewhere on an actual approach, "visual segment" is part of the procedure design, and is fixed for a particular approach.

Tootle pip!!

[fmgc]

I would like to survey pilots' opinions as to when a Cat I/II/III approach is complete. Is it at decision height? Is it after the aircraft has landed? Is it as the aircraft exits the runway onto the taxiway system. When is it?

Why do you ask, if you gave your question some context it might be easier to answer?

[aterpster]

LeadSled:

When you are "cleared for approach", the clearance limit is the runway threshold, that is where the approach ends and the landing starts. Sorry I can't give you a reference, time-wise, it is too close to Christmas.

Because there isn't any such reference.:)

A clearance for an instrument approach procedures has as it clearance limit the end point of the missed approach procedure.

[grounded27]

Aircraft are usually flying throughout rollout until a variable airspeed. I would say it is when the aircraft has come to a full stop or exited the taxi way. You can always get a tow to the gate.

[Intruder]

Looking at the OP's question in full context, I stand by my original answer. Rollout guidance and SMGCS are unique to Cat II/III operations. While you might be pendantic and debate the definition of "approach" in FAA, PansOps, EU-Ops, or other documents, getting safely to the gate is a MAJOR consideration in Cat III operations.

[westhawk]

getting safely to the gate is a MAJOR consideration in Cat III operations.

And how about getting FROM the gate TO the runway during low visibility conditions? I'd say it's just as much of a challenge. If an operator is approved for 600 RVR departures, it's pretty likely that they'll encounter visibilities of LESS than that during the TAXI phase. Or is that part of the takeoff? :cool:

But I agree in spirit with what you're implying intruder. In fact low RVR isn't necessary to present effectively poor visibility types of challenges to taxiing safely to or from your parking position. Especially at night. Or while it's raining/snowing. The way some of the lighting on the airport can glare off of wet/snowy/icy surfaces and windshields might make you want to whip out the low vis taxi chart and request a new taxi route!

In any event the specific criteria defining different phases of flight vary somewhat according to who defines them and for what purpose. Accident statistical analysis, certain aviation regulations and operator SOPs all differentiate between classification of events or requirements according to "phase of flight". A separate taxonomy for each purpose and usage it seems. In flying as in normal life, I find the inconsistencies in the use of terminology to be the single biggest source of misunderstanding among my peers. As such, this little discussion certainly does no harm even though it can easily be seen as having devolved into esoteric pedantry. :)

westhawk

[aterpster]

There is certainly merit in calling the landing roll-out of a CAT III approach part of the approach. Having said that CAT III approaches are unique in their requirements for aided roll-out guidance.

Once down to taxi speed, though, the approach is over. Granted, getting to the gate can be very difficult;nonetheless that is not part of the approach procedure.

Although not advised, the airplane could stop on the runway and sit there for a very long time, or a few hundred feet off the runway on the taxiway. So, when would that be considered parked?

[sevenstrokeroll]

any approach is complete when ATC cancels your IFRclearance...its that simple

[aterpster]

seven:

any approach is complete when ATC cancels your IFRclearance...its that simple

That is more of a controller's perspective.:):)

[aterpster]

westhawk:

....esoteric pedantry.

what forums are about!!

[galaxy flyer]

I can tell ya when it's complete, when ATC says so, that's when.

Proof:

Late night (1am), new pilot making first night landing with crosswinds, cleared ILS approach, in weather, at a field with a closed tower, so I didn't think about the coming complication. Break out below radio coversge, vacate the runway, do the "after landing", thank the pax, help get new plane put "to bed" with ground crew who are unfamiliar with new plane--lots of "stuff" happening. Wait, you know what's next....."Sir, the Fire Department called, ATC wants your flight plan closed."

So, the approach is over when ATC says so.

GF

[westhawk]

C'mon GF, tell the truth! You received that call at the hotel bar didn't you?

[galaxy flyer]

West hawk

I can truthfully say, the call was from the FD, I did ring the local TRACON and I did so sheepishly.

Howver, the department chief, the next day said, he was glad they didn't call him which they had done in the past.

GF

[westhawk]

Ya gotta admit my version makes a better story though. :ok:

Anyway it's based in truth but for one exception. (you'll figure it out by the end of the story)

I was on temporary work assignment in Springfield, IL and decided to check out in and rent a Cessna from an FBO at Capitol airport so I could fly to Dayton on the weekend for a visit to the AF museum. So a coworker and I flew over there in a 172 and had a great day, staying at the museum until past closing. After having some dinner and driving a rental car around Dayton for awhile, the weather started closing in so we got right outta there and headed back to SPI, arriving after the tower had closed for the night. Being the conscientious instrument rated private pilot I was, I had filed IFR but completely spaced on the fact that I'd need to close my flight plan myself since the tower was closed. It was while having drinks back at the hotel bar that my companion for the day asked how ATC knew we'd arrived safely at SPI. :uhoh: Needless to say my mea culpa call to FSS was embarrassing and it was a contrite me who went back into the bar to finish my drink! Turns out they'd already called airport security, who'd verified the airplane was safely parked in it's tie-down. :D

So I guess that particular flight ended at the bar.

westhawk

[sevenstrokeroll]

whether you like it or not, when the tower sees you down on the runway and unlikely to takeoff ATC cancels your clearance and the approach is over.

so...when you go to a non tower air port. you have to tell ATC that you are not a threat to other planes (ie you are on the ground in one piece).

good luck

[misd-agin]

When's the approach really over? When you get slapped, she walks away, or you get her key. Up until then keep working it. :O

[nitpicker330]

Only 2 replies made me smile.:E:ok:

As to the question my answer is: Who cares really??????:{

[italia458]

LeadSled...

Wherever you fly, your home CAA or whatever, have a look up your AIP, it will probably be there, it is also in Annex 10, Vol.2 somewhere: The phrase "cleared for approach" means the clearance limit is the threshold. Not any other point in space. Look it up to satisfy yourself. This sort of thing is basic, it is not a matter of opinion. You might also find it in UK CAA CAP 413.

You're going to have to show me a reference for that. If you're cleared for an approach, the clearance limit is the missed approach holding waypoint. If a controller thinks that you will likely go missed due to weather they will usually amend the missed approach clearance by giving you a new missed approach clearance with a clearance limit. This is an example directly from Nav Canada ATC MANOPS:


ON MISSED APPROACH CLEARED TO THE NORTH


BAY VOR VIA VICTOR THREE SEVEN CLIMB TO ONE

SEVEN THOUSAND. UPON LEAVING THREE

THOUSAND TURN LEFT DIRECT MUSKOKA NDB,




PROCEED ON COURSE.



The clearance limit in that clearance is the North Bay VOR.


The "missed approach" begins anywhere down the approach that the approach is discontinued, as Westhawk has noted. The design missed approach segment begins at the DH or MDA for the particular approach.



I do know the different segments of the instrument approach procedure. And I agree that a "missed approach" starts anytime you start it! But the missed approach segment, as you mention, is fixed.



CAR 602.127(1) states: "Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure."



If ATC doesn't amend your approach clearance, you must make the approach in accordance with the instrument approach procedure. Is the missed approach segment part of the "instrument approach procedure"? Yes, it is. You must therefore follow it, unless you have an amendment to that ATC approach clearance.



If you think your clearance limit when "cleared for approach" is the missed approach hold (if there is one) try a missed approach somewhere busy, and you will get a practical demonstration otherwise.



Wow! Show me a regulation that says that I can't do a missed approach when it's 'busy'. I don't give a damn if it's busy or not! And ATC doesn't either. They're required to protect the airspace (if in controlled airspace) from all IFR, and sometimes VFR, traffic when you're operating on an IFR clearance.



Can you show me an approach that doesn't have a missed approach holding point?



You should call up your local IFR area control center and ask them what the clearance limit is when you receive an approach clearance - trust me, they know!

[de facto]

'Approach to land'
Means is the approach and Land is the goal.:E
Fly the approach ,if Land ok,approach is over.
If Go around,a new approach clearance will be given.(once GA is started,approach is over).
If landing at an uncontrolled airport,flight plan is closed when reported to ATCO once on ground.(movile phones not allowed until engine(s) shut off:8).

[9.G]

1.10.6 Instrument Approach

1.10.6.1 Unless authorized to make a visual approach, an IFR flight must conform to the published instrument approach procedure nominated by ATC.

1.10.6.2 A pilot request to conduct a specific approach should be made prior to STAR clearance issue, or prior to top of descent for arriving aircraft not on a STAR eligible route.

1.10.6.3 Authorization for final approach will be in the form of a clearance for the type of approach as shown on the approach chart title. If visual at the minima, the nominated runway then becomes the clearance limit subject to any further ATC instructions and a clearance to land. In the event that the aircraft is unable to land from the instrument approach or loses visual reference while circling, the aircraft is cleared to carry out the published missed approach unless ATC directs otherwise. The pilot in command must seek further ATC instructions prior to reaching the end of the missed approach procedure. :ok:

[italia458]

As quoted by 9.G: (you should include the reference data for that)

In the event that the aircraft is unable to land from the instrument approach or loses visual reference while circling, the aircraft is cleared to carry out the published missed approach unless ATC directs otherwise. The pilot in command must seek further ATC instructions prior to reaching the end of the missed approach procedure.

That's pretty clear, IMO. And what happens when you don't get further ATC instructions prior to reaching the end of the missed approach procedure? - you hold! Either as published on the racetrack depicted on the plate, inbound on the published track, or inbound on the track on which you arrived at the missed approach holding point. - TC AIM RAC section.

[aterpster]

g.f.:

I can tell ya when it's complete, when ATC says so, that's when.

Proof:

Late night (1am), new pilot making first night landing with crosswinds, cleared ILS approach, in weather, at a field with a closed tower, so I didn't think about the coming complication. Break out below radio coversge, vacate the runway, do the "after landing", thank the pax, help get new plane put "to bed" with ground crew who are unfamiliar with new plane--lots of "stuff" happening. Wait, you know what's next....."Sir, the Fire Department called, ATC wants your flight plan closed."

So, the approach is over when ATC says so.

Wrong on two accounts:

1. The issue was failure to close (yes, close, not cancel) an IFR flight plan at an uncontrolled airport. ATC has to hold open the airspace in those circumstances. That makes them very unhappy after some time has passed.

2. ATC doesn't "say so" in these circumstances but they are working from the same book as the pilot, which places the burden on the pilot to close his IFR flight plan once landed at an uncontrolled airport. At a controlled airport the tower closes it for you.

In the air the pilot can elect to cancel IFR, weather permitting, which then closes the IFR flight plan. But, you can't cancel IFR once on the ground, only close the flight plan.

[aterpster]

That's pretty clear, IMO. And what happens when you don't get further ATC instructions prior to reaching the end of the missed approach procedure? - you hold! Either as published on the racetrack depicted on the plate, inbound on the published track, or inbound on the track on which you arrived at the missed approach holding point. - TC AIM RAC section.

Most FAA IAPs have a charted missed approach holding pattern unlike many countries.

Then again, at major airports ATC will more often than not provide radar vectors when the pilot declares a missed approach.

[galaxy flyer]

aterpster

Confession being good for the soul, my post was partly "tongue in cheek" and partly an effort to burnish my karma! Yes, I agree with both your points. The funny part is the day before at a nearby uncontrolled field, I did exactly as you stated. It was the combination of lots happenin' and forgetting that the tower had closed leading to failure to close the flight plan.

[bubbers44]

AA routinely closed the flight plan by cancelling IFR on approach when visual to that Puerto Rican airport on the west side that was a B52 base made it easier than contacting ATC after landing with a closed tower. It simplified things but may not have been 100% proper.

[LeadSled]

Because there isn't any such reference.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

aterpster,
Sorry, old chap, it's in Annex 10, Vol.2, and repeated in the Australian AIP.

You should call up your local IFR area control center and ask them what the clearance limit is when you receive an approach clearance - trust me, they know!

Italia 458,
I don't need to, see above --- as far as the meaning of "cleared for approach", and the stated clearance limit.

For those of you who seem to believe all missed approach segments end in a holding pattern, I suggest you have a thumb through an international Jepp., you might be surprised. That they normally do in US, for example, does not mean the rest of the world, or the procedure design options, require same.

Places that are a good example of the scramble for ATC when an aircraft does not land off an approach, regardless of the regulatory theory ---- and all from personal experience:
KJFK --- goes double when Canarsie approach is in use, KLAX, KSFO, EGLL, EGKK, EGCC, EDDF, EHAM and any major airport in Australia.

The nearest I have ever come to a mid-air was during a missed approach, 28L at EGLL, with another aircraft taking off on the same runway, fortunately a very slick ATC sorted, but a hard left turn a 500' on a missed approach wakes you up!!

Tootle pip!!

[sevenstrokeroll]

bubbers...our airline had in its FOM that you could cancel IFR as long as you had VMC, airport in sight, within 25 nm of the airport and it makes sense in your situation...esp with people waiting for your arrival after an INRANGE call.

so I think you had the same thing and it was proper.

[bubbers44]

I thought so too but was never absolutely sure so did it when appropriate to not cause delays on the ground when I just wanted to go to the hotel. It takes that first first cool aid another couple of minutes away.

[aterpster]

LeadSled:



aterpster,
Sorry, old chap, it's in Annex 10, Vol.2, and repeated in the Australian AIP.

I am suffering under U.S. rules where such would never, ever be the case.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to post the pertinent part of Annex 10, Volume 2 that sets forth the fact a pilot could be cleared for an instrument approach procedure with no where to go should there be no visual references at minimums.

[autoflight]

Only my personal opinion, is that whenever not able to make a visual approach, you are still on instrument approach until taxy speed. Visual segments like circling approach could also be part of approach if conditions unsuitable for visual approach.

[westhawk]

Some more esoteric pedantry for everyone's reading pleasure:

For most purposes, a circling maneuver included in an IAP would be considered a visual segment of an IAP. The manufacturer and certifying authority would consider the landing to begin at the threshold at 50' at Vref for the purpose of establishing landing distance for the performance charts. The ICAO taxonomy committee says landing begins when the flare is commenced. Some entities may consider any visual flight below the MDA of an IAP or pattern altitude if VFR to be within the definition of the landing phase. As near as I can tell nearly every organizational entity considers landing rollout to be within the landing phase and taxi to/from any point on an airport to be within the taxi phase.

Question: Why do they call it autoland if it's not part of the landing? ;)

Seriously though, I'm not having a go at anyone. I'm just trying to make the point that terminology can have very specific meaning for certain purposes.

Before he became a big radio and TV blowhard, Rush Limbaugh wrote an interesting (to me anyway) book called The Way Things Ought To Be. IIRC, it was in this book that he made a very obvious but profound observation: "Words mean things!"

westhawk

[aterpster]

ok465:

terpster:

Look at Burnet, Texas (KBMQ) RNAV to 19, missed to a fix only depicted with no hold specified....unlike KBMQ RNAV to 01 with a missed to a specified hold. standard hold? why not depict it? you tell me

What I said previously:

"Most FAA IAPs have a charted missed approach holding pattern unlike many countries."

8260.3B requires for the terminus of a missed approach either holding or an end point in the en route environment. Having said that policy for the last few years has typically been to provide holding, en route terminus or not. But, not always. KCRQ, the airport near where I live has a missed approach hold for the two RNAV IAPs but not for the one ILS. The ILS goes to the OCN VOR where holding impinges on a restricted area so ATC bets on the come that they will have radar prior to OCN. With the RNAV IAPs they can place a missed approach terminus waypoint wherever they want.

Re: KBMQ AMUSE is on airways but I suspect when the procedure is next revised there will be a holding pattern at AMUSE.

[italia458]

OK465...

Look at Burnet, Texas (KBMQ) RNAV to 19, missed to a fix only depicted with no hold specified....unlike KBMQ RNAV to 01 with a missed to a specified hold. standard hold? why not depict it? you tell me


In post #38 I described exactly how you are to hold once you reach the missed approach holding point. The reference for that is in the Transport Canada AIM as well as the FAA AIM. As for not depicting a holding pattern at the MAHP, there are reasons for that. Recall the 3 holding entries I wrote in post #38. There are two entries that don't include hold patterns on the plate: 1) If nothing depicted, hold inbound on the track you arrived at the point at. In that case, the missed approach instructions would have told you to go direct the MAHP at some point. The obstacle clearance doesn't require you to maintain a specific track while flying to the MAHP so, therefore, none is specified and you're allowed to hold inbound on the track that you happen to arrive on. 2) If a track inbound to the MAHP is depicted, hold inbound on that track. In that case, the missed approach instructions would have told you to intercept that specific track at some point, to fly direct to the MAHP. This could be due to obstacle clearance requirements. They don't need to depict a hold pattern in this case as every pilot should have been properly educated to know how they're supposed to hold in this case before getting their instrument rating! If they just depicted a hold pattern and said go direct to the fix for the missed approach, the pilot wouldn't intercept a specific track to the fix which would be bad if there were obstacles that penetrated the required obstacle clearance areas.

Those 3 entry patterns are really quite straight forward.

This is directed at others who do not understand instrument approach procedures ---> There is always a missed approach segment for an instrument approach procedure. ATC expects you to follow that procedure unless they give you specific missed approach instructions. If you show me an instrument approach procedure I'd be happy to show you where the missed approach instructions are depicted! :ok:

Westhawk...

Good words!

[italia458]

LeadSled...

The nearest I have ever come to a mid-air was during a missed approach, 28L at EGLL, with another aircraft taking off on the same runway, fortunately a very slick ATC sorted, but a hard left turn a 500' on a missed approach wakes you up!!

If that was actually a near mid-air, ATC was entirely at fault.

[italia458]

OK465...

I just checked KLAS and KORH - all the approaches say "and hold" in the missed approach instructions. I'm not totally familiar with FAA procedures but it seems that it's normal to say "and hold" so I'd guess that the RNAV 19 is just a typo.

Anytime you're operating under IFR in controlled airspace you will require a clearance. Every clearance has a clearance limit. If you reach the clearance limit prior to receiving further clearance, you are to hold. I'm guessing that's why they don't specifically say "and hold" on Canadian plates - the clearance limit for an instrument approach being the MAHP.

[BOAC]

For the non-European guys, in case you come here, we have several M Apps with no 'MAHP' published, but 'as directed' by ATC eg EGKK, EGLL

[aterpster]

I just checked KLAS and KORH - all the approaches say "and hold" in the missed approach instructions. I'm not totally familiar with FAA procedures but it seems that it's normal to say "and hold" so I'd guess that the RNAV 19 is just a typo

Highly unlikely it is a typo. I can pull the source if you like.

[italia458]

aterpster..

Highly unlikely it is a typo. I can pull the source if you like.

The source that says that it's NOT a typo? I'd love to see that! I already have a copy of the plate.

What would you do once you reached the missed approach point in that case? Would you put the brakes on and just hover there? :}

[italia458]

To everyone:

The FAA AIM paragraph 5-5-5 states the pilot and controller responsibilities. Have a read :ok:

Also read: FAA AIM 5-4-7(h) for more missed approach information.

[westhawk]

For the non-European guys, in case you come here, we have several M Apps with no 'MAHP' published, but 'as directed' by ATC eg EGKK, EGLL

And as previously mentioned some procedures in the US may leave one to consider their what if options.

As long as radar contact and communications with ATC are maintained this is fine. Though I suppose it might be interesting to know what ATC presume an aircraft will do if they go lost comm and miss the approach.

westhawk

[TheRobe]

The approach is over when ATC knows that you are down, off of it, out of the way. It's all about separation. It's really about them and their responsibility to have to watch you or not.

[aterpster]

italia458
The source that says that it's NOT a typo? I'd love to see that! I already have a copy of the plate.

In the U.S. the source is the Form 8260-3 or -5, not some entity's approach chart. You can see the source for each of these RNAP IAPs at:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/application/index.cfm?event=procedure.results&tab=ndbr&nasrId=BMQ

Don't click on to the chart, rather click to the source. The textual missed approach data is on the right hand side. Note no charting instructions for a holding pattern for the Runway 19 IAP and the text agrees with that. Chances of a combined typo is about zero.

What would you do once you reached the missed approach point in that case? Would you put the brakes on and just hover there?

A discussion such as this one works a lot better without unwarranted sarcasm.

It is 17.6 n.m. from the Runway 19 threshold to AMUSE. If I can't obtain further clearance prior to reaching AMUSE I have a problem.

[aterpster]

Also read: FAA AIM 5-4-7(h) for more missed approach information.

h. If a missed approach is required, advise ATC and include the reason (unless initiated by ATC). Comply with the missed approach instructions for the instrument approach procedure being executed, unless otherwise directed by ATC.

That's what most of us have been alluding to.

[italia458]

aterpster...

In the U.S. the source is the Form 8260-3 or -5, not some entity's approach chart. You can see the source for each of these RNAP IAPs at:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flig...dbr&nasrId=BMQ

Don't click on to the chart, rather click to the source. The textual missed approach data is on the right hand side. Note no charting instructions for a holding pattern for the Runway 19 IAP and the text agrees with that. Chances of a combined typo is about zero.

That doesn't prove that it's a typo! What it does prove is that whoever makes charts from the source form is absolutely FANTASTIC at copying and ensuring whatever is on the source form gets onto the final approach plate.

They really should be teaching debating, and logic and reasoning courses in high school these days. :hmm:

A discussion such as this one works a lot better without unwarranted sarcasm.

It is 17.6 n.m. from the Runway 19 threshold to AMUSE. If I can't obtain further clearance prior to reaching AMUSE I have a problem.

Yes, that problem is a communications failure. Please continue to explain what you'd do now.

The thing is, this isn't a debate. It's clear that you're unfamiliar with the proper procedures.

Also, I could easily find an approach plate that has a MAHP more than 17.6NM from the runway AND also states "and hold" in the missed approach instructions. That would blow your argument away.

[aterpster]

458:


The thing is, this isn't a debate. It's clear that you're unfamiliar with the proper procedures.

When I was age 25 I wasn't dry behind the ears either.

[aterpster]

okc465:

To muddy the waters further and add another slant on this, look at the ILS/LOC 24R missed at MCAS (formerly NAS) Miramar (KNKX).

The military designers march to a different drummer than the FAA folks in OKC.

[italia458]

When I was age 25 I wasn't dry behind the ears either.

Hahah :ok: Good one!

I may be younger than you, but I happen to know the procedures and rules better than you do, sir.

[galaxy flyer]

Italia458

Just a personal thought, but when you have to make insults or swipes at people, you're losing the argument. I'd guess (in fact, know) that sterpster has a broad background in approach design and charting. Please tone down the pretentious "I know better" attitude.

You are correct, technically, about the NORDO possibility, but the real world doesn't always work perfectly. In any case, the NORDO aircraft would be "protected" by ATC clearing the airspace, calling for the filed alternate and planning for the NORDO aircraft to fly airways to that alternate.

GF

[italia458]

GF...

Just a personal thought, but when you have to make insults or swipes at people, you're losing the argument.

I'd usually agree with you. But this is something that I've taught every multi-IFR student and is, IMO, one of the very basic rules of IFR. I thought it to be ridiculous to see the arguments aterpster was supporting. And I find it even more ridiculous to learn that he has a broad background in approach design!

Maybe I should have just shook my head and not said anything.

You are correct, technically, about the NORDO possibility, but the real world doesn't always work perfectly. In any case, the NORDO aircraft would be "protected" by ATC clearing the airspace, calling for the filed alternate and planning for the NORDO aircraft to fly airways to that alternate.

Exactly! That is why we have procedures for NORDO at ALL stages of flight. The 'perfect' world would have you always getting vectors or a new clearance immediately after your missed approach and you wouldn't even need missed approach instructions. Also, the procedure of holding at your clearance limit isn't strictly a NORDO procedure - ATC might be quite busy with other traffic and isn't able to get you a further clearance right away. So he can just leave you be and know that you will hold at your clearance limit... hopefully! I'm hoping all the IFR pilots out there actually do know to hold at the clearance limit.

[autoflight]

If you are not making a visual approach, you are making an instrument approach. It is academic where the "landing" commences. Cat 3 autoland rollout may be a landing to all, but it is also part of the approach. Circling in lower weather conditions than required for a visual approach is part of an instrument approach. Lined up on finals with less weather than required for a visual approach is part of an instrument approach. Ditto for touchdown and rollout. It might be a landing but it is still an instrument approach.

Even after touchdown there is still a bit of flying to do. Lower the nose (or tail), aileron into x-wind, rudder to stay on the centreline.

Regulatory definitions are there so that someone in an office can read a FDR or QAR, write a report or determine limitations. Whatever those folks say, if you are following the instrument approach procedure from your Jep or other chart and conducting it in accordance with FOM instrument approach procedures, you are are on an instrument approach. You cannot abandon the procedure or the consideration that it is not a visual approach and landing, without just cause.

[LeadSled]

If that was actually a near mid-air, ATC was entirely at fault.

Oh!, The certainty of those with apparently limited experience.

Actually, it wasn't an ATC fault at all, the offender was the aircraft taking off, and on that day, (as every other day, really) ATC was depending on crews to adhere to their clearance, which, in this case, was "cleared for immediate takeoff", and we heard the clearance at about 4nm. The aircraft on the ground didn't comply with the clearance, as we became visual at about 2/300 ft., it was just starting to move.

ATC had no ground radar at the time, and, in theory, has provided necessary procedural separation. With us going around, and the other aircraft climbing up underneath us, "director" broke into the tower frequency, and gave is the immediate left turn already mentioned.

Given the very wide variety of actual standards of crews operating in UK airspace, to this day, UK NATS and local controllers do a remarkably good job.

Tootle pip!!

[aterpster]

italia458

I may be younger than you, but I happen to know the procedures and rules better than you do, sir.

The sad part about that statement, besides its arrogance, you have no idea whether that is the case.

For all I know you may very well know the ICAO rules that apply outside of the United States better than I do. But, don't try to arm wrestle me over approach design and air traffic procedures in the United States, because you will lose. Sadly, you seem to rather attempt to save face by obscuring the technical aspects of a discussion. Perhaps you don't see the tactics you are using.

The original issue of the thread was about where an approach ends on landing. Then the issue of the missed approach came up. Then, you introduced the lost comm procedure, presumably with specific reference to the KBMQ RNAV 19 IAP.

You asserted that the lack of a missed approach holding pattern must be a typo. That is absurd, and I pointed you to source. But, you wouldn't accept the fact that both the missed approach text and the lack of a directive to chart a hold was not typo. That is simply an unreasonable assumption.

I pointed out that missed approach holds are the common design in the U.S. but not elsewhere. And, even in the U.S. it is not a mandatory design requirement.

Another point: I asked you to post or point to a reference to an ICAO document but you ignored that request.

Then you introduced the element of lost comm. Do you actually understand the lost comm regulation in the U.S.; FAR 91.185? If you did you would understand that 91.185 does NOT cover missing an approach. At that point, if a missed approach were to happen with lost comm, the procedure at that point is up to the pilot under his/her exercise of emergency authority. But, arguing about sustained lost comm is akin to arguing about angels on the head of a pin.

Not only was I involved with TERPS criteria as an ALPA safety committee member during my 27 years as a pilot with TWA I continue to be involved with TERPS, RNAV, PBN, and RNP AR to the present time.

When I was a young lion like you, before my airline days, I put quite a few folks through instrument training and flew a fair amount of IMC in light airplanes.

Then, I went with TWA and rather quickly found out how little I really knew about serious IFR flying. That was a real learning experience.

Flying the line for a career, as many of us here have, tends to make one mature and become a bit more humble. But, that doesn't mean walking away from a reasoned debate or reasonable difference of opinion.

Is your flying limited to light aircraft or are you presently working for an airline that flies Part 25 airplanes?

Know, please tell me with technical specificity and civility where I have made an invalid or incorrect technical statement in this thread.

That will be refreshing and appreciated.

[italia458]

LeadSled...

I shouldn't have been so certain about it being ATC's fault. However, I was trying to point out that your experience doesn't justify your position that the approach clearance is only to the threshold and doesn't include the missed approach.

If you look at FAA AIM 5-4-21(h), the first sentence says: "A clearance for an instrument approach procedure includes a clearance to fly the published missed approach procedure, unless otherwise instructed by ATC."

The FAA is quite clear on that.

ICAO reference? - ICAO 8168 Volume II: 6.1.1.1 states: "A missed approach procedure shall be established for each instrument approach and shall specify a point where the procedure begins and a point where it ends."

Not the same as or as clear as the FAA reference, I'm sure I could dig more and get you an ICAO reference that states the same thing as the FAA AIM, but I'll just work with this 6.1.1.1 reference for now. Are you going to tell me that when you're cleared for an approach, you're not cleared to fly the missed approach even though 6.1.1.1 states that a missed approach procedure SHALL be established for each instrument approach? You're saying that when you get a clearance to fly an instrument approach procedure it includes clearance to fly the initial approach segment, intermediate approach segment (if applicable), and the final approach segment, but DOES NOT include clearance to fly the missed approach segment of the instrument approach procedure? I'd like a reference for that.

US TERPS 8260.3B CHG 21 para. 270 states: "A missed approach procedure shall be established for each instrument approach procedure (IAP)."

Canada TP 308 Change 5.3 para. 270 states: "A missed approach procedure shall be established for each IAP."

If you keep reading para. 270 in both the TP 308 document and TERPS document it says this: "The missed approach procedure must be simple, specify an altitude, and a clearance limit." - TP 308, "The missed approach procedure must be simple, specify a charted missed approach altitude (altitude at clearance limit), and a clearance limit fix/facility." - TERPS.

It's pretty clear that the clearance limit is at the end of the missed approach segment.

I could get you the reference for the CAR or FAR that says you must follow the instrument approach procedure but I think that's unnecessary - I will if you'd like though.


aterpster...

The ILS goes to the OCN VOR where holding impinges on a restricted area so ATC bets on the come that they will have radar prior to OCN.

And when an airplane reaches OCN and has been unable to get further clearance from ATC, what is the pilot supposed to do?

FAA AIM 4-4-3(e)(3) states: "If no holding pattern is charted and holding instructions have not been issued, the pilot should ask ATC for holding instructions prior to reaching the fix. This procedure will eliminate the possibility of an aircraft entering a holding pattern other than that desired by ATC. If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.), hold in a standard pattern on the course on which you approached the fix and request further clearance as soon as possible. In this event, the altitude/flight level of the aircraft at the clearance limit will be protected so that separation will be provided as required."

Unfortunately, the US TERPS and TP 308 documents just talk about procedure design and not what the pilot shall do.

TC AIM 9.26 is even more clear on the procedures to follow: "Should the pilot arrive at the missed approach holding fix prior to receiving further clearance, the pilot will:

(a) hold in a standard holding pattern on the inbound track used to arrive at the fix;
(b) if there is a published missed approach track to the fix, hold in a standard holding pattern inbound to the fix on this track;
(c) if there is a published shuttle or holding pattern at the fix, hold in this pattern regardless of the missed approach track to the fix; or
(d) if there are published missed approach holding instructions, hold in accordance with these."

I think I've provided sufficient evidence for why I teach that you are to hold at the clearance limit if you do not receive further clearance. I'm sure if I spent more time digging up references I could strengthen my point but I will wait for your response first.

Sorry for my arrogant comment, I was frustrated at the time.

As for my current position: I fly a large aeroplane under the commuter category rules. We need to have aircraft performance determined under very similar regulations to Part 25. I should be going to a Part 25 airplane soon though.

I will admit that the more experience I get, the more knowledgable I will be. But I don't think that my current airplane I'm flying provides any info into whether my knowledge about the subject is correct. I may be young but that doesn't mean my understanding of the system is flawed. I sure do have lots to learn and I could be wrong on a number of things.

[9.G]

beyond any doubt, a clearance for the approach includes a clearance for a missed approach. One can't just freeze over the threshold, can he? I don't even understand why is there any discussion bout it? Basic rule anywhere in the world, if the clearance limit is reached pick up the hold if no further instructions from ATC were given. What else can one do? Fly into eternity? :ok:

[italia458]

9.G...

beyond any doubt, a clearance for the approach includes a clearance for a missed approach.

Yes!

Basic rule anywhere in the world, if the clearance limit is reached pick up the hold if no further instructions from ATC were given.

Yes!

Thank you! I was beginning to think that all professional pilots didn't know these rules. After all this is the "Professional Pilots RuNe".

[galaxy flyer]

Where did anyone argue that, upon reaching a clearance limit without further clearance, you shouldn't hold? You brought the issue of lost comm, which isn't addressed in the FARs. That's when you get to earn the paycheck and make a decision and execute it. There is not a procedure for every problem.

GF

[italia458]

GF...

I asked aterpster this: "What would you do once you reached the missed approach point in that case? Would you put the brakes on and just hover there?"

And his answer was: "It is 17.6 n.m. from the Runway 19 threshold to AMUSE. If I can't obtain further clearance prior to reaching AMUSE I have a problem."

I would not accept that as a correct answer if I was his instructor. Why didn't he say he would hold at AMUSE until obtaining further clearance?

You brought the issue of lost comm, which isn't addressed in the FARs. That's when you get to earn the paycheck and make a decision and execute it. There is not a procedure for every problem.

I agree. I shouldn't have talked about lost comm at that point as it wasn't applicable. I was simply asking what the procedure is when you reach the clearance limit without further clearance.

[italia458]

I believe aterpster is under the impression that if a hold is NOT depicted, then you don't hold at the clearance limit - which is incorrect.

I'm full aware that a hold doesn't have to be depicted at the clearance limit of an instrument approach, and in a number of cases it isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that once you reach your clearance limit, you are to hold!

[galaxy flyer]

I believe he's fully aware of it, too. This is a forum, not a "gotcha" USAF ground eval.

GF

[9.G]

OK 465, there's none. See definition of the clearance limit:

CLEARANCE LIMIT
The point to which an aircraft is granted an air traffic control clearance. :ok:

[aterpster]

italia458:
And when an airplane reaches OCN and has been unable to get further clearance from ATC, what is the pilot supposed to do?
It's a "paper" missed approach because the FAA cannot publish radar vectored missed approaches (except for ASR approaches) unlike the U.S. Navy in OKC465's example.

Having flown in and out of KCRQ many times over the years what happens when you miss the approach (and the tower is open), the tower says, "Maintain runway heading. Contact So Cal on 127.3"
When the tower is closed you remain with SoCal for the approach and any possible missed approach. I've never flown the approach when the tower is closed so I don't know exactly how it is handled then.

But, the track to OCN is a paper procedure.

Note the RNAV "Y" and RNAV RNP "Z" for the same runway. They go straight ahead to a holding pattern.

[italia458]

aterpster...

I understand that operationally you hardly ever fly the published missed approach. However, the point I was trying to make is that if you were to reach the clearance limit without further clearance (for whatever reason!), you are to hold at the clearance limit.

I'm still not sure if you're on the same page as me since you've refused to acknowledge my statement - either in agreement or disagreement.

[FlightPathOBN]

I understand that operationally you hardly ever fly the published missed approach.

Really? :uhoh:
You get to just make stuff up as you go missed?

[italia458]

FlightPath...

You must have missed something when you quoted me...

I understand that operationally you hardly ever fly the published missed approach.

[aterpster]

FlightPathOBN:

Really? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif
You get to just make stuff up as you go missed?

Read my Post #82.

I realize you are a designer but likely not a pilot or you would know at busy radar terminal areas ATC often supercedes the published missed approach with a radar vectored missed approach.

[FlightPathOBN]

As most published approaches are along the lines of 'straight ahead' ...

and the Part 77 surfaces, I see little deviation available before that is reached...

[italia458]

aterpster and FlightPath...

Sorry for being so arrogant to you lately. It hasn't helped the discussion.

[aterpster]

Happy New Year 458. You will likely be a more positive contributor here than many posters.

[italia458]

Thanks! Happy New Year! :)