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.