PPRuNe Forums


The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th Sep 2017, 07:56   #81 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 2,852
Quote:
As I've already pointed out, we're not talking about precision approaches
Where was that slipped in?
Capt Fathom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:18   #82 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
Where was that slipped in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtually There
I agree, it makes provision for climbing prior to the MAPt. And we can rule out any precision approach in the proposed scenario, as it is standard procedure to climb out before the MAPt once you reach DA. The ILS glidepath takes you right down to the threshold, so even if you did level off at any point, you're not going to make the runway.

But a non-precision approach is slightly different, as there is a horizontal buffer once you reach the MDA. With a circling approach (and even straight-in) it's quite conceivable you could level out, break visual and still land. And if you are, say 5nm out and still above the MDA, is there anything illegal about maintaining altitude prior to the MAPt before commencing climb?
Post 50, etc.
Virtually There is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:27   #83 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by dehg5776 View Post
I don't understand why you persevere with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtually There
Apologies, I know this is getting a bit tedious now and ignores the fact most would instinctively immediately climb out as part of their MA procedure. The point I'm trying to make is, it doesn't appear the regs prevent you from leveling off prior to the MAPt, and this has been used to create the proposition I initially put forth. It is not my idea, but I have heard it proposed now from a number of different sources. That's why I'm asking for the legal take.

Unless there's another reg I've missed, this thread has probably run its course.
Actually, I got my answer a few pages ago and said as much in Post 52. But, you know, then the seagulls swooped with their suggestions I wanted to kill myself etc, and here we are, flogging a dead horse because everyone reads - or doesn't read - what they want to before commenting.

To those who have remained civil and pointed out various regs and reasons why they think the climb must always start immediately in a MA prior to the MAPt, thank you for taking the time to post.
Virtually There is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:33   #84 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,332
Couple of points:

1. On a precision approach the DA is at the MAP, so no, you don't normally climb out before the MAP on a precision approach. However, if you did do a missed approach prior to the DA then you would climb out straight away.

2. You say it is common to be out of tracking tolerance. No, it is not common. What is common, is to track down the middle of the approach and either get visual and land or not get visual and go around. I have never been, nor seen anyone fly, out of tolerance outside of a simulator session.
AerocatS2A is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:43   #85 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by dehg5776 View Post
Like you have said before, your ATO and instructors have found a grey area and seem to be thinking too much into it, but it is ultimately at their peril. Such behaviour is seriously frowned upon by airlines, as SOP's rule, and I think a lot of people on here getting upset are doing so for this reason. They are trying to help you and guide you away from listening to something that has no basis in common sense and airmanship.
I understand, and thank you for taking the time to post. This is the GA forum - none of what I've written applies to the jet jockeys - and all I was really asking was for someone to point out the regs. Some did, and I presented counter-arguments highlighting grey areas that had already been considered. It's not a matter of spitting in anyone's face - it was simply about exploring the legalities of a different interpretation of the regs I had recently heard, and wanting to know if there was something that had been overlooked.

For the record, the scenario put to me was slipping out of tolerance on an RNAV at 5 or so miles out and then, in accordance with the regs, leveling out (thus discontinuing the approach), tracking to the MAPt, and commencing the climb as instructed by the plate. If you were to get visual in the mean time, all good and well.

When I first heard this, I argued against it like everyone else here. But then I wondered, is there anything legally wrong with it in certain circumstances?

My mistake was simply trying to explore that here.
Virtually There is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:46   #86 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Infinity and beyond
Posts: 3
Instrument approaches contain an apparent level segment, so for an RNAV, the MDA starts (usually, unless there is a step) at the final approach fix. I recall being taught to descend to the MDA as soon as possible after the final approach fix, then fly straight and level if not visual, in order to maximise the chance of becoming visual and then being able to drop the nose and descend to the runway. However, at the airline I fly for, the RNAV is a constant descent approach to the MDA. The missed approach, including an immediate climb of course, is conducted from the MDA, and not the MAPt. There is no level segment. In theory, were I to be 500ft low for the entire approach to the MDA the missed approach may well occur several miles before the MAPt is reached. The MAPt is largely irrelevant, in this case, and passes un-noticed.
dehg5776 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:47   #87 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post
As I've already pointed out, we're not talking about precision approaches.

This is not directed at you, RAMROD, but there are a lot of people here quick to comment and slow to read.
Ok, lets say an arbitrary 900ft off the CNS 15 LLZ. Exact same missed approach, and a non-precision to boot!

Or 1100ft on the 15 RNAV.

Precision or not it doesn't matter.
Car RAMROD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:56   #88 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A View Post
Couple of points:

1. On a precision approach the DA is at the MAP, so no, you don't normally climb out before the MAP on a precision approach. However, if you did do a missed approach prior to the DA then you would climb out straight away.

2. You say it is common to be out of tracking tolerance. No, it is not common. What is common, is to track down the middle of the approach and either get visual and land or not get visual and go around. I have never been, nor seen anyone fly, out of tolerance outside of a simulator session.
1. Yes, if you are bang on glidescope. And your aircraft has altimetre pressure correction. Otherwise, you might be a little under (still within tolerances), or have a 50' higher DA, and reach it just prior to the published MAPt. But now, I think, we might be splitting hairs.

2. So maybe "common" was the wrong choice of words. It happens. I've seen it happen, I've done it myself - and for the record I climbed and flew to the MAPt. Instructors see it all the time - otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. If you only see it in sims, then I'm guessing you likely fly jets with a coupled auto-pilot. But I don't know you, so I'm only going to guess - I'm not going to make an assumption.
Virtually There is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 08:59   #89 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD View Post
Ok, lets say an arbitrary 900ft off the CNS 15 LLZ. Exact same missed approach, and a non-precision to boot!

Or 1100ft on the 15 RNAV.

Precision or not it doesn't matter.
Horses for courses. I also said earlier in this thread it wasn't being proposed for every approach; only in certain circumstances where there were no known obstacles and you could still track accurately to the MAPt with your radio nav/GPS etc.
Virtually There is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 09:05   #90 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by dehg5776 View Post
I recall being taught to descend to the MDA as soon as possible after the final approach fix, then fly straight and level if not visual, in order to maximise the chance of becoming visual and then being able to drop the nose and descend to the runway.
Yes, and while it's not always ideal, it's safe, legal, and there is a reason behind it. And I take your point about the MAPt vs MDA on an RNAV in a high-peformance aircraft. All this shows is there are different ways of looking at things. And yes, common sense/safety/airmanship should always be the overriding factor. But this is a bulletin board - there is simply no need for people to get so uptight.
Virtually There is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 09:23   #91 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Infinity and beyond
Posts: 3
The whole premis of your initial enquiry was in regards to a navaid failure or being out of tolerance.

If the NDB has failed (or raim loss) then you have no way of flying towards it, so you go missed immediately. I know you have mentioned using dead reckoning to get there, etc, and quoted from ENR, but station passage of an NDB that is no longer working is impossible.

If you are out of tolerance on an apprppach and make an effort to get back on track then this may be accepted by an ATO. It is the sustained and un-noticed devation that isn't good and would lead to a missed approach. This still needs to lead to a missed approach whilst trying to save face by getting back on track. Again, the missed approach includes an immediate climb whilst tracking MAPt, and since you are reconfiguring (gear up, flaps 0, etc), then continuing with a landing if you did break visual can't be done. I also think that, by being out of tolerance and initiating a go around, you have conceded defeat and trying to re-continue an approach, should you become visual, would be seriously wrong and I can't believe that anyone would suggest this.
dehg5776 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 10:41   #92 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
To the first and second points, correct. I quoted the reg and that contains provisions for both aid failure and going out of tolerance. I went back to one of the sources I obtained this from to clarify under what circumstances it was being proposed, and then relayed that here in relation to going out of tolerance at or after the FAF.

To the last point, you don't necessarily have gear and flap down if you are expecting a circling approach at the other end, so there might not be the need to reconfigure. This would be true if you were expecting to circle to the opposite runway upon breaking visual.

If the missed approach includes an immediate climb - as the majority have interpreted here - then you are obviously correct. And that was really the whole point of this thread. No-one was arguing you continue down; the argument was simply if you go out of tolerance and must execute a missed approach as per the regs, can you level out and fly to the MAPt and continue your climb there? Legally, there doesn't appear to be anything preventing this. Though many here have argued the opposite, based on their interpretation the regs.

Like I said earlier, I don't really want to flog a dead horse as pretty much everything that can be said on the subject has been said. I was just getting a bit testy towards the end because a couple of people were being rude. It wasn't my intention to keep going on and on.
Virtually There is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Sep 2017, 15:54   #93 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post
2. So maybe "common" was the wrong choice of words. It happens. I've seen it happen, I've done it myself - and for the record I climbed and flew to the MAPt. Instructors see it all the time - otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. If you only see it in sims, then I'm guessing you likely fly jets with a coupled auto-pilot. But I don't know you, so I'm only going to guess - I'm not going to make an assumption.
Yes, instructors will see it a bit, they are instructing after all. My point was just that once a new IF pilot gets out into the real world and gains just a little experience, flying approaches becomes routine and a missed approach due to being out of tolerance is rare. That goes for hand flown piston twins and the bigger fancier machines.
AerocatS2A is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Sep 2017, 06:42   #94 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,454
Quote:
You've made the decision to go missed, so go missed. What is one of the instructions in any missed approach procedure? Climb to xxxx. So climb. Don't stay level "in hope of getting visual", that's just stupid.
One of the hairiest stories I ever heard was that of an overseas 737 operator conducting the Port Vila, Vanuatu, VOR LOC DME Rwy 11 instrument approach. The final approach course down the localiser is 080 degrees. Airport elevation 70 feet. Weather was marginal with rain and low cloud at the minima.

Those familiar with Port Vila will recall the final approach is offset by nearly 30 degrees to the runway requiring a turn to the right of 30 degrees when visual in order to line up to land on Runway 11 (106 degrees M). If not visual at the MDA of 820 (769') a curved missed approach to heading 180 is required.

The captain was PF. With landing flap selected the aircraft was stable on the localiser approaching the minima. At the minima of 820 feet and still in low cloud the aircraft was not visual and the PM called Go-around. The captain hesitated as if unable to make up his mind then applied GA thrust and started to climb. He forgot to call for Flap 15 and the PM called the omission and then selected Flap 15.

The aircraft had started to climb when suddenly the runway became visual. To the astonishment of the PM the captain announced "landing" and pushed the nose down. There were no other calls from the captain. The PM hurriedly selected landing Flap 40, and hoped for the best as things were beyond his immediate control. The flaps had not reached 40 when the aircraft landed hard well into the runway. With heavy braking and max reverse thrust it stopped before the end.
The PF, a senior check captain, gave no explanation for his change of mind.

The reason for telling this story is to highlight the risks of making a snap decision when after a go-around at a landing minima caused by poor visibility, a change of mind to revert to a landing could prove potentially fatal even if runway length is not an issue. Let alone pressing on with an unstable approach.

Last edited by Centaurus; 15th Sep 2017 at 07:02.
Centaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Sep 2017, 21:48   #95 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Auckland
Posts: 12
Sorry if this has already been posted but saw this in the New Zealand AIP this morning

ENR 1.5 - 33

"4.17.6 If a missed approach is initiated prior to the specific missed approach point the pilot is required to track to the missed approach point and then follow the missed approach procedure. The missed approach point may be overflown above MDA."

Have to agree with other posters that have said climb straighto away. If you're going missed early, there's obviously a reason so get back to a safe height and fly the missed approach. You can always have another go at landing, no need to stay level hoping to go visual then try to salvage an approach you're probably now too high for.
LeFrenchKiwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Sep 2017, 03:15   #96 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 172
Virtually There, you are arguing two different points.

If you are on a IAP, in cloud and the Aid Fails/Lose Tolerance/Instrument Fails etc AND are below the MSA you have to start climbing as you cannot guarantee your terrain separation. You cannot continue at your last altitude as you have no idea where you are. Especially so in places that where you are below the hills. The extreme example would be Queenstown. Would you as PIC whilst doing an approach there and lose the tolerance required whilst below hills continue on at your last altitude?

Now if you commence the Missed Approach and then become visual, you can abandon the missed approach, take on your own terrain separation and fly visually around for a circuit or land on the runway. The Caveat being that you are visual and can maintain that.

They are two different concepts. You cannot stooge along in IMC without knowing where you are hoping to break visual. If anything CASA could nail you on the PIC requirement of being responsible for the safety of flight. If you are below the MSA without a Position fix you are endangering the safety of the aircraft.
ga_trojan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Sep 2017, 13:51   #97 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post
WTF? Have you ever done an instrument approach?

WTF? If aircraft didn't occasionally go out of tolerance on an approach, there would be no need for ENR 1.5 1.10.1.

WTF? Can you even read English?

Because if you could, WTF?, you would know that MA climb gradients are plotted from the MAPt, and that this whole thread concerns executing a missed approach prior to the MAPt.

You would also know, WTF?, that any time you break visual with the runway you can execute a landing within the circling area subject to ENR 1.5 1.10.1(c), to wit:

Do yourself a favor, pal, don't just jump into some thread you haven't taken the time to understand and start asserting your own illiteracy.

It's been spelled out under what circumstances it was proposed to level out, get back on track and fly to the MAPt before climbing - and it was a proposal, not a promotion. I asked if it was legal or not. And not you, nor any one else who has resorted to personal attacks instead of addressing the original question has provided any evidence to the contrary.

So save your sanctimony and back your argument up. Or not.
For someone who is complaining about others being rude, perhaps you need to look in the mirror.

Perhaps the negativity being experienced by yourself on this thread is purely due to the fact that most other IFR pilots find the very question incredulous.

You ignored the part of my post where I questioned whether this was a boring and irrelevant legal question, or a practical one. You seem to too-and-fro between the two.

While looking up ENR 1.5 1.10.1(c), look again at (a) and (b). You will never get to (c) because you have already commenced a missed approach due to (a) or (b) - according to your scenario. The only legal way you can subsequently make an approach is to discontinue the missed approach and make a visual approach (not the same thing) - the visual approach requirements are in a different section of the AIP which will depend upon day or night. The night requirements are more interesting and limiting. Perhaps legal but not advisable according to the many reasons provided on this thread.

Last edited by Derfred; 19th Sep 2017 at 14:12.
Derfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Sep 2017, 07:46   #98 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London
Posts: 466
PANSOPS Vol I

Quote:
6.1.4 It is expected that the pilot will fly the missed approach procedure as published. If a missed approach is initiated before arriving at the missed approach point (MAPt), the pilot will normally proceed to the MAPt (or to the middle marker fix or specified DME distance for precision approach procedures) and then follow the missed approach procedure in order to remain within the protected airspace.
Note 1. This does not preclude flying over the MAPt at an altitude/height greater than that required by the procedure.
The end.
oggers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Sep 2017, 11:18   #99 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 407
Quote:
Note 1.— This does not preclude flying over the MAPt at an altitude/height greater than that required by the procedure.
And is usually a very f&cking good idea. The end, indeed!
josephfeatherweight is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Sep 2017, 05:19   #100 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfred View Post
For someone who is complaining about others being rude, perhaps you need to look in the mirror.
I'm quite comfortable with what I see. Perhaps you should look back at your initial interactions with me. Respect is a two-way street - as most here will know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfred
Perhaps the negativity being experienced by yourself on this thread is purely due to the fact that most other IFR pilots find the very question incredulous.
Just because you haven't heard or thought of something yourself, doesn't mean others haven't. Until recently, I had only ever interpreted the regs one way. There is nothing wrong with opening your mind to a different view, even if you do not agree with it. By the same token, that does not make you a proponent of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfred
You ignored the part of my post where I questioned whether this was a boring and irrelevant legal question, or a practical one. You seem to too-and-fro between the two.
Not at all. You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. However, given your track record in this thread, one could be forgiven for wondering if reading comprehension is really your forte . . .

Of course, you don't have to read anything I have written, but you don't look too flash when you start rebutting points that were never made (climb gradient), or were already addressed (see below).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfred
While looking up ENR 1.5 1.10.1(c), look again at (a) and (b). You will never get to (c) because you have already commenced a missed approach due to (a) or (b) - according to your scenario. The only legal way you can subsequently make an approach is to discontinue the missed approach and make a visual approach (not the same thing) - the visual approach requirements are in a different section of the AIP which will depend upon day or night. The night requirements are more interesting and limiting. Perhaps legal but not advisable according to the many reasons provided on this thread.
Again, 1.10.1 (c) refers to visual reference not being established at or before the MAPt.

If you are required to execute a missed approach before the MAPt under (a), then the whole premise of the argument is you are legally entitled to conduct a circling approach if you suddenly break visual and satisfy the circling procedure requirements.

In one of my examples, you could be 5nm out on an RNAV at the FAF when you go out of tolerance and are required to execute a missed approach - which, incidentally, commences at the MAPt. If you happen to break visual before reaching the MAPt, and you are within the circling area, and you maintain visual reference to the runway, and are clear of cloud and obstacles etc, etc, you are now conducting a (visual) circling approach and do not need to continue tracking to the MAPt to conduct the MA.

If you disagree with the above interpretation of the regs, all good and well. But at least now we are (hopefully) on the same page.
Virtually There is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:06.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1