Visual Missed Approach Procedure

[aviatorhi]

Great...

I'm a "troll" because I understand that being cleared for a visual with termination of radar services means I'm still on an IFR clearance.

[9.G]

Aviatorhi, you made me get to the bottom of this, for that I thank you.

Here we go:
5-1-15 CANCELING IFR FLIGHT PLAN
If operating on an IFR flight plan to an airport where there is no functioning control tower, the pilot must initiate cancellation of the IFR flight plan. This can be done after landing if there is a functioning FSS or other means of direct communications with ATC. In the event there is no FSS and/or air/ground communications with ATC is not possible below a certain altitude, the pilot should, weather conditions permitting, cancel the IFR flight plan while still airborne and able to communicate with ATC by radio. This will not only save the time and expense of canceling the flight plan by telephone but will quickly release the airspace for use by other aircraft.

Conclusion: it can be done both ways canceling IFR and continuing IFR. However as much as I disagree with your title of Troll I disagree with a statement of being cleared for a VISUAL approach after radar service being terminated. The clearance will be given to proceed to your destination airfield
with the wording cleared to XXXX radar service terminated contact advisory xxx,xx. You can elect to continue by visual means or by following published IAP, it's up to you. There's NO separation provided between IFR & VFR traffic.
You state your intention to FSS and they simply acknowledge NO clearance is given. Should you proceed by visual means or VFR you're expected to join the traffic pattern and report downwind, base and final. In case you follow IAP OM, FAF etc is to be reported. The flight plan is to be canceled after landing.

The truth is born is the discussion.

[aviatorhi]

I'll agree with most of that, and I'll also point out that I used the phrasing "addendum" when referring to cancellation of radar services, which would mean the cancellation comes after the approach clearance. As far as cancellation goes I would typically use the HF set (if so equipped), if that has poor reception (shakes fist at Auckland Radio), I'll get the Satphone out. Relaying a cancellation via a passing aircraft is also an option.

I'll also point out that in remote places (Alaska for instance), we would often operate outside of the radar coverage area, on an IFR flight plan and be cleared for a visual, more often than not I preferred a cruise clearance (this equates to being cleared from your present cruise altitude all the way to the ground) once I was outside of the radar coverage area. Out of the many airports I flew into, 3 had control towers, 4 had FSS and the dozens of others had nothing more than a gravel runway and a ramp.

I always enjoyed having FAA inspectors from more "traditional" operations riding along with us, my favorite one was a guy who told me I can't fly VFR in a 121 (Scheduled Commercial operation in the US) airplane, and he was shocked that I did that for one of the legs (we would do 8 legs on a slow day). I quickly pointed out that if it was illegal why did my GOM contain OPSPECS authorizing me to do so, I wish I had a camera to capture the look on his face when he saw I wasn't BSing him and that we were authorized to operate at 500 ft AGL and 1 miles visibility for the enroute portion of the flight (VFR ofcourse), very useful when the airports don't have IAPs.

[mad_jock]

In the discussion before the ATC chaps said that......

They are having conferences on the subject because it isn't actually defined as such internationally.

There are some countries which have thier own procedures eg US but many don't but there is urban myth that there is a procedure eg UK its fly the missed approach for the instrument approach you were orginally cleared for.

Apparently its all very complicated and one shoe doesn't fit all.

The only real way to find out is to ask.

[9.G]

once again FAA has been somewhat ahead of the game by authorizing the CONTACT approach. VFR under 121, not sure if there's any restriction in FAR but certainly most of the flag carriers elect to forbid commercial VFR flight, it's a matter of liability etc.

[aterpster]

9.G:

once again FAA has been somewhat ahead of the game by authorizing the CONTACT approach. VFR under 121, not sure if there's any restriction in FAR but certainly most of the flag carriers elect to forbid commercial VFR flight, it's a matter of liability etc

Another example of how little you know about all of this.

[9.G]

aterpster, attitude determines altitudes is unshakable axiome of aviation. Unless you change your attitude you're bound to stay off the radar old man.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I know of no FAR part 121 major US airline that authorizes contact approaches. (per operations manuals) However for your initial question, a contact approach (authorized only where there is a published instrument approach) would cover you in a missed approach situation.

[9.G]

sevenstrokeroll, in case your last post was for me. I didn't suggest otherwise. Whatever the carrier choses to implement as authorized procedures can't exceed the regs it certainly can be more restrictive. I SPOKE ABOUT FAA AUTHORIZING THE CONCEPT NOT THE AIRLINES IMPLEMENTING IT. As usual it's left to the operator to decide bout it. No such concept as CONTACT APPROACHES or SIDE STEP are available in EU OPS to my knowledge. That's the whole point. I concur with the rest of your message.

[galaxy flyer]

The FAA Answer to Visual Go-arounds

For all the bluster, MSFS pseudo-experts, and the general nastiness, not one person has accurately referred to the controlling FAA document:

Per Airman's Information Manual, Chapter 5, Section 4 (Arrival Procedures), Paragraph 22 (Visual Approach), sub-paragraph e:

A visual approach is NOT an IAP and therefore has NO missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled fields will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled fields, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If an landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances. (Empahsis added)

I cannot find a Doc 8168 answer, as it primarily references IAPs; but I cannot believe a vastly different answer is appropriate. While I recognize the UK has specific procedures, following the missed approach for an approach one was NOT cleared to fly (and maybe one of several for the runway in use) in crowded airspace may be questionable airmanship. Missed approach procedures are frequently designed as 'standalone' procedures and do not address busy airspace, multiple planes flying approaches.

GF

[9.G]

here's the ICAO definitions:

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

MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE
The procedure to be followed if the approach cannot be continued.

Unlike FAA it's a very vague definition.

[BOAC]

9.G - I have actually found that quite clear enough over 44 years or so.

EDIT: Rest removed as I have now read the relevant FAR

[galaxy flyer]

The introduction of the FAA "Contact" approach is another red herring that has no relevance to the discussion on visuals or go around procedures. A contact can ONLY be authorized at airfields with IAPs, required weather is only "clear of clouds", 1 SM visibility and the pilot's reasonably expecting to continue to the field visually. Yes, one can fly a contact to an airport with mins of 2 SM, if the field is reporting 1 SM visibility--busting mins legally. But, contacts within the context of FAR 121 flying are rare events, probably AK mostly.

The FAA just put out a InFO (InFormation for Operators) letter on 1/25/2011 on visual approaches. It cautions pilot's that they must remain "clear of cloud" during any visual approach, that there is NO missed approach segment to be flown and that a go around must remain "clear of cloud". The letter is the result of pilot's accepting visuals in marginal VMC raising questiions as to the pilot's compliance with regulations. You MUST have the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight and be able to fly to the destination while remaining clear of clouds.

The link is http://faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_...ne_safety/info

It is a VISUAL maneuver--why all this talk of missed approaches? If you cannot fly clear of cloud, don't accept the visual, insist on a clearance for the IAP.

GF

[BOAC]

GF - I think the 'missed approach' here means folk are concerned on stuffing up the pattern somewhere and what to do, not 'losing sight in scud etc'. In the UK if you do, say, screw up the final turn and get high/fast/unstable etc and g/a, you should follow ATC direction for any g/a because in the airline world you are probably still 'IFR' (although 'visual') and thus ATC are responsible for IFR separation of you from known traffic.

[mad_jock]

I don't know I have done a GA at MAN off a visual, And it was because Air France didn't clear the runway in time when crossing. Tower gave the GA instructions with the instruction to GA. And I might add they were different to the published missed approach for 23R