Originally Posted by
Derfred
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.
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.
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).
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.