PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28th Dec 2012, 23:39   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,250
Quote:
Because there isn't any such reference.
aterpster,
Sorry, old chap, it's in Annex 10, Vol.2, and repeated in the Australian AIP.

Quote:
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!!

Last edited by LeadSled; 29th Dec 2012 at 00:11.
LeadSled is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 00:14   #42 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,664
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.
sevenstrokeroll is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 01:10   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,470
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.
bubbers44 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 01:11   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 1,866
LeadSled:

Quote:

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.
aterpster is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 05:39   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 281
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.
autoflight is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 07:13   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 680
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
westhawk is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 13:23   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 1,866
ok465:

terpster:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by aterpster; 29th Dec 2012 at 13:27.
aterpster is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 15:27   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 359
OK465...

Quote:
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!

Westhawk...

Good words!

Last edited by italia458; 29th Dec 2012 at 15:37.
italia458 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 15:40   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 359
LeadSled...

Quote:
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 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 16:37   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 359
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.

Last edited by italia458; 29th Dec 2012 at 16:38.
italia458 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 16:47   #51 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 17,901
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
BOAC is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 17:37   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
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.
aterpster is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 21:00   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 359
aterpster..

Quote:
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?

Last edited by italia458; 29th Dec 2012 at 21:00.
italia458 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 21:10   #54 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 359
To everyone:

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

Also read: FAA AIM 5-4-7(h) for more missed approach information.
italia458 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 21:20   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 680
Quote:
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
westhawk is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 21:43   #56 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 47
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.
TheRobe is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 21:53   #57 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 1,866
italia458
Quote:
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/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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by aterpster; 29th Dec 2012 at 21:54.
aterpster is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 21:57   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
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.
aterpster is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 22:17   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 359
aterpster...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
italia458 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 22:48   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 69
Posts: 596
To muddy the waters further and add another slant on this, look at the ILS/LOC 24R missed at MCAS (formerly NAS) Miramar (KNKX).

Not only do the missed approach instructions not include the phrase, 'and hold'....

....there is no specific (safe) place to go....the instructions DO include the phrase, 'expect radar vectors'.

You gotta be Tom Cruise to fly in Southern California (or Texas)...

"Goose, get the charts out."
"Mav, put the brakes out and buy us some time."

(Old days, on Wednesday nights, you couldn't remember whether you did it right or not anyway. )

Last edited by OK465; 29th Dec 2012 at 23:02. Reason: make that 24R not L
OK465 is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


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 20:58.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network