PDA

View Full Version : Swing over with missed approach


hetfield
5th Nov 2007, 06:29
Let's assume you are flying an ILS at airport with two parallel runways e.g. 27L. You are offered a swing over to 27R and you do so. For any reason a missed approach has to be conducted. Which procedure do you fly, for 27L or 27R ?

Dream Land
5th Nov 2007, 10:29
I'll go out on a limb here and say follow ATC instructions. :E

Marty-Party
5th Nov 2007, 10:49
Without any contrary instructions from ATC, follow the missed approach of the runway you are landing on i.e. 27R.

A lot of missed approach procedures are designed to separate a/c using a parallel runway usually by turning away. So 27R would have a turn to the right and 27L a turn to the left.

Spitoon
5th Nov 2007, 11:23
It's not a situation that I have to handle as a controller at present....and I don't have the books to hand to check....but I have always thought it was the missed approach associated with the instrument approach that you followed (before any visual manoeuvring) that should be flown.

But, as ever, if you're not sure and there are no instructions forthcoming from ATC - ask.

londonmet
5th Nov 2007, 12:47
I'd say that if you're flying the instrument approach to 27L and get offered a switch of 27R by the means of a visual manoevre then you're now flying a visual approach to 27R. So by definition if you execute a missed approach/ go around then i'd fly the published procedure for 27R.

L337
5th Nov 2007, 13:36
In the USA, you would now be "visual". So you would carry out a visual go-around not the IFR go-around.

So for a swing, I am told it would be straight ahead to circuit height and ask ATC asap.

I think.

Rainboe
5th Nov 2007, 16:09
Fly the go-around for the runway you are landing on! For all you know, you may have been swung over to the other runway so a departure can take place on the runway you were approaching on. So if you do the original go-around, you would be turning over the departing aeroplane. It would be common sense to advise you were 'turning right on the go-around'.

G-SPOTs Lost
5th Nov 2007, 16:34
I for one shall stick my neck out and say if you have been cleared for an instrument procedure on 27L and then lose the runway whilst trying to circle for 27R, then my 0.02p's worth is that you fly the missed approach procedure for the runway that you initially shot the approach on.

People above have mentioned parallel runways, thats a bit of a red herring.

Luckily circling is not something we do often. But consider 27ILS at Memphis circle for the 18's and perhaps a bit more nearer home 27ILS and circle R22 at Amsterjam, doing the 22 go around would cause chaos!

Now between the 0 degree difference in runway heading in the case of a parallel runway and the 90degree difference at Memphis is there a certain difference of alignment that we should change procedure?

Captain Galactic
5th Nov 2007, 16:36
When ATC clear you for the swing over ask them what they would like you to do in the event of a missed approach. Problem solved....

G-SPOTs Lost
5th Nov 2007, 16:40
Assuming you can get a word in - which is why you might be going around in the first place.....

4Screwaircrew
5th Nov 2007, 18:17
Is it now a circle to land? If so then the miss should be that for the instrument approach just conducted.

Rainboe
5th Nov 2007, 20:21
L337- we don't have such things as visual go-arounds in Europe- it's a US thing.

GSPOT- you're changing the question to suit your answer. The question was about 2 parallel runways as at LHR. You have no experience at airline ops at airports like LHR, so your answer is misleading.

I have had this situation at LHR several times over the years. Each time there has been the opportunity to switch over ILS to the new runway. So why would you fly a go-around on a runway you are no longer approaching? As I said, the likely reasons are: slow clearer ahead and other runway clear, opportunity to take off aeroplane on original runway and other runway clear, or other runway clear and you want to park near that side anyway. So if another aeroplane then gets cleared to go on your original runway, and then you decide to go around and turn across LHR and overfly your original runway that another aeroplane may be lifting off, then you are demented and need to be carted off. You have simply changed your approach to a different runway! Why on earth would you then fly a go around for a different runway? It's crazy! It is not a circling approach! Why try and make it one? This is the real world, not academic ATPL stuff, and an element of common sense is needed.

I do not believe ATC do this any more at LHR anyway. It is a procedure that is now frowned upon in airline ops I believe. It must make the flight recorder monitoring go crazy.

hetfield
5th Nov 2007, 20:24
So Rainboe,

what about EDDF 25L swing to 25R or
LSZH approach to 14 swing to 16.....???

Rainboe
5th Nov 2007, 20:32
I repeat- we are not talking circling approaches! ATC have switched you to another runway. They will then expect you to follow procedures for that runway. If following the original runway's GA leads to a hazard (as at LHR) then you will cause considerable surprise in the tower following a procedure that is not expected by ATC. It is 10 years since I have habitually visited FRA and ZRH, I am not that familiar with them anymore.

Does the logic some of you are using mean that if at 3000' I am switched over to another runway, then I should fly the original GA? Extraordinary!

hetfield
5th Nov 2007, 20:38
Concerning EDDF, ATC expects you to follow M/A for 25L even you have swung to 25R.....

LSZH, I have no idea:ugh:

Rainboe
5th Nov 2007, 21:05
Concerning EDDF, ATC expects you to follow M/A for 25L even you have swung to 25R.....
Why? Isn't there a note to this effect on the landing plate- I seem to recall one? Does that make it a requirement everywhere or does that make it a special exceptional requirement for FRA 25L/R?

hetfield
5th Nov 2007, 21:13
To my limited knowledge it's amongst whole germany. Got that from a german atco.

Fluke
5th Nov 2007, 21:17
A good gotcha is accepting a swing acrooss to the parallel runway when visual and forgetting the missed approach for the original runway remains in the FMS. Seen this happen a few times at KJFK when originally cleared 13L then offered 13R which is quite a bit closer off the non precision approach. Aircraft gets high or unstable, goes round and the pilot re-engages the NAV mode and all hell brakes lose. Swingovers were a lot easier in early generation jets than the 340's and 777's where someone needs to put a head down to update an FMS when all eyes should be outside the cockpit. Personally I don't accept them anymore, unless briefed and then I fly the G/A if reqired in a basic mode or ask ATC to maintain runway heading.

FullWings
5th Nov 2007, 21:49
I thought a circling approach was defined as a 30deg or more change from the FAT to the runway... So most of those we are discussing are technically "switches" rather than circling?

I think I would do the the G/A applicable to the runway I was trying to land on, unless otherwise advised by ATC or notes on the plate.

Gonzo
5th Nov 2007, 22:22
If following the original runway's GA leads to a hazard (as at LHR) then you will cause considerable surprise in the tower following a procedure that is not expected by ATC

At Heathrow, if you are on the ILS 27R, and we switch you visually to 27L, we will expect you to carry out the 27R missed approach procedure (i.e. the one you briefed, and the one you set up for).

Thus, you can be sure we will give you positive missed approach instructions ASAP.

G-SPOTs Lost
5th Nov 2007, 23:38
GSPOT- you're changing the question to suit your answer. The question was about 2 parallel runways as at LHR. You have no experience at airline ops at airports like LHR, so your answer is misleading.


Rainbow - do you know me?, I have operated into LHR on many occasions and with all due respect my bizjet will spoil somebodys day just as much as your boeingbus will whichever one you pilot. God knows what airliner ops has to do with it

So please calm down - perhaps you would feel happier if I had attached "discuss" to the end of my post, my point was valid.

Love to hear about your EHAM approach 27ILS followed by a "Swingover" for R22 (ATC quote if we are being pedantic about quoting the original poster) if you go around of R22 mate people will get hurt.

PS nobody mentioned LHR until you did......:yuk:

G-SPOTs Lost
5th Nov 2007, 23:41
CG


Dont worry he's done it many times over the years ;)

parabellum
6th Nov 2007, 04:54
Is it called 'Swing Over' now? It has happened to me a few times in the USA, at LAX, e.g. 24L and 24R and there it is/was called 'Side Step'.

At LHR I was finals 27L in VMC and and asked if I could still make 27R, answer 'Yes', 'Roger, you are now cleared to land 27R' in that case I would, having visually established finals 27R, done the missed approach for 27R.

downsouth
6th Nov 2007, 05:11
Is there anything written about it?? The thing is, which missed approach has been briefed?? Why would I be forced to fly "by memory" a missed approach for a runway i wasn't expecting to land on, and also i hadn't taken a look at the plate either??... What's even worse, maybe the plate for that runway I'm side steping to, is not in sight (i don't know you, but i keep the plate i'm "flying" on top (on the plates holder), and it's not a good idea to be switching them while hand flying at a few hundred feets agl). My common sense says, I'd fly the missed approach for the runway i was originally approaching to... Then again, IS THERE ANYTHING WRITTEN ABOUT IT??? (of course, there must be..) However, if in doubt, I'd request the atc to give me "instructions in case of a missed approach"

Gonzo
6th Nov 2007, 06:48
Not sure where it's written down for you guys, but in our Heathrow Manual of Air Traffic Services it's in black and white that we can expect you to do the MAP for the original runway, hence we should promptly take corrective action.

hetfield
6th Nov 2007, 06:52
@GONZO

Thx, that's exactly what my german mate told me.

Rainboe
6th Nov 2007, 07:03
Gonzo- you can't fly the original GA as written. You are looking for a DME reading off the ILS to make your turn north or south as appropriate to make your turn away from the airport at LHR. If you have moved to the other runway, you are not going to get that DME reading at all, so it is impractical. If what you say is correct, then the whole thing is dangerous as if you fly the original GA, you will be turning right over the central area to cross over the other runway- a bit crazy considering that somebody may have been cleared for take-off on it. When I have done this procedure in the past at LHR, we have had time to retune the ILS and get the GA read out. So when you GA, where does that leave you.

It is largely a theoretical discussion anyway as BA issued a notice to refuse swingovers like this a few years back. The reason was we are to be stabilised at 1000' at the latest lined up with the runway. Therefore you have to be changed over much further back, which makes it a whole new approach, with time to appraise yourself of the procedures for the new runway.

I now know enough not to accept them at all, as ATC procedures appear to be so confused, unless it is quite understood what the GA procedure is to be. Because of the doubts about it being thought through enough at LHR at least, that is most certainly a place to decline them unless it is agreed what must be done. Discussing potential GAs below 1000' is daft. Don't do them then. Especially when company procedures ban them.

Gonzo
6th Nov 2007, 07:31
We'd never get as far as allowing you to fly it, though. Our books say that we should expect you to fly it, precisely so that we know what might happen, so that we go in and positively control things.

Is it not the case that you would get a 0DME 27L at some stage if you were overflying 27R, because DME south has been zeroed to read 0DME at both the TDZ of 27L and the TDZ of 09R. That arc would continue to intersect 27R at some point.

I switched a BA 319 last week, at 3 miles. He was wings level on final at about 400ft.

Rainboe
6th Nov 2007, 07:45
I am not aware of a zero reading being possible at both thresholds- it's beyond my training and understanding of this zero reading, which is faked anyway.
For flight recorder reasons, we have instructions- we should be stabilised in all respects at 1000'. We must be stabilised by 500'. Otherwise you will get phone calls when the flight recorder shops you- as you will if you don't detune the ILS (full scale deflection will get you a phone call). So it is no longer really a practically acceptable procedure- you have to detune the ILS, which you say you need for the GA. Hearing how busy and congested the tower frequency can be, it has become a recipe for an accident these days. That Airbus Captain will have had a phone call about doing that.

Shiny side down
6th Nov 2007, 08:14
Missed approach relevant to the runway you are on, seems the only logical answer, UNLESS, they have passed alternative missed approach instructions (rwy heading to 3000', etc)
L337. I would also be careful of carrying out a visual manoeuver having gone 'visual' in the united states.
We were landing aircraft on something-Right in the US (possibly Boston)recently, when an (US)aircraft someway behind had to break off the approach (parallel in use). The pilot was visual. What ensued was a fairly urgent exchange over the radio. The controller wanted a standard missed approach. The pilot wanted to do 'a quick turn right, and give it another go'. After several increasingly emphasised calls from tower controller, he finally got the message.
There were at least 4 calls on the subject with no other calls in between. The missed apprach really keeps everyone separate and safe, and gives people time to decide what to do next.

G-SPOTs Lost
6th Nov 2007, 08:26
Gonzo

Your procedures are exactly what I got on my last refresher, one rule needs to be applied and written down to avoid Pilot Interpretation and therefore as many different GA's as pilots.

Rainboe I shall sincerely bow to your experience and admit that your actions on any given day AT HEATHROW would no doubt be safer and what you are saying is no doubt correct about the safety aspects but there needs to be a common denominator for all operators and airport.

Which brings me back to my original post, the parallel runway was a red herring......... circle, swingover, sidestep call it what you want -fly the original missed. ATC will know what you are planning to do and issue instructions before you get anywhere near the published procedure for the original runway

Dream Land
6th Nov 2007, 10:10
Missed approach relevant to the runway you are on, seems the only logical answer, Hello, please listen to the air traffic controller here.
UNLESS, they have passed alternative missed approach instructions (rwy heading to 3000', etc)Your trying to make a joke here right? There is a very important person who takes care of this, he is supposed to have the big picture, he's called the Local Controller, in visual conditions you most likely will not get an option to side step, (or swing over :confused:) more than likely you will not ever make the IFR missed approach procedure, common sense prevails.

Rainboe
6th Nov 2007, 11:18
You are missing the point chaps. You physically cannot fly the original missed approach (at LHR at least). You must detune the original ILS to turn towards the other runway otherwise the flight recorder will throw up a deviation and an unstabilised approach. Therefore come a GA, you would have to retune the ILS to check DME readings for a GA, in the middle of a GA, and commence your turn very rapidly.

Besides which BA issued a notice to decline such swingovers about 4 or 5 years ago, for this very reason.

I'm afraid this is very academic now- it is no longer a simple procedure as it used to be before flight recorder monitoring. I shall certainly decline it unless it is understood the procedure to follow, but that is not easy when LHR tower is so congested sometimes you cannot break in to say anything. It's asking for an incident. Nowadays we are supposed to be stabilised with no turns by 1000'. It can no longer be done.

I'm afraid it is no longer thought through. If you are switched runways 12 miles out? Are people suggesting you fly the original runway GA? That's daft. So where is the 'dividing line' where ATC will expect you to fly the new GA or the old one? Where does it become a 'changed' approach and not a runway swingover? If I'm 15 miles out from AMS 27 and they switch me to 24, will they really expect me to fly a 27 GA? I bet it would cause considerable surprise! It's important because line pilots just do not have this information- and they are the ones that count, not some ATC rule book!.

EMB170
6th Nov 2007, 11:49
I experienced the swing over procedure in EDDF on quiet a few occasions, but to avoid the confusion you can always refuse the swing over in the first place and if you have to do a G/A because of it ,there is no argument!
I'm all for keeping it simple, it's difficult enough to decide if it is tea or coffee on the turn around.

The other thing in EDDL is that they ask you to swing over fairly late, which at the time didn't conform with our SOP, stablised approch criteria.

good luck anyway

G-SPOTs Lost
6th Nov 2007, 12:03
Pure Waffle Now - what has your onboard monitoring system got to do with following ATC procedure that is written in Black and White?

If you did get hauled over the coals because of said monitoring, surely if you demonstrated that you were flying in compliance with established ATC procedures they couldn't say much!

Many operators don't have on board monitoring !!! - Aircraft Type/Kind Of Operations is also irrelevant. Forget Heathrow/BA/on board monitoring/ The original question didn't mention any of these. Its a question of procedure .

Rainboe
6th Nov 2007, 12:25
You don't follow ATC established procedures if it puts you in contravention of your company's established operating procedures, so it is relevant, I'm afraid, not waffle! You operate the aeroplane in accord with your company flying manual and obey requirements. So the only answer is to decline all swingovers if you cannot stay within company procedure guidelines, and maybe accept a GA as a result. At least there will be no doubt as to what you then do! It looks like ATC must clean up their procedures here.

G-SPOTs Lost
6th Nov 2007, 13:05
The orginal question went something very much like this:

Let's assume you are flying an ILS at airport with two parallel runways e.g. 27L. You are offered a swing over to 27R and you do so. For any reason a missed approach has to be conducted. Which procedure do you fly, for 27L or 27R ?

And now you are saying:
So the only answer is to decline all swingovers if you cannot stay within company procedure guidelines
So you iniitally offer an opinion, its proved incorrect and now you justify your error by saying that in effect it doesn't matter becasue you cant do them anyway. Why respond to the thread?

And as for :
You don't follow ATC established procedures if it puts you in contravention of your company's established operating procedures

and

It looks like ATC must clean up their procedures here

And in all of Germany presumably

Priceless, I've said enough already you can be judged by your peers on these gems.

Suggest you find a tin hat.

Rainboe
6th Nov 2007, 13:16
I thought this was a discussion to find the answer to a question and how to conduct a procedure. You appear to see it as two sides with tin helmets on, winner to be declared. You have provided no answer to serious operational questions- I don't see it as an effective safe procedure, whatever allegedly ATC may expect. It is no longer a discussion, it's a point scoring row- where did the need for tin hats come in here? We might as well terminate- I can see it effectively going no further than point scoring.

I'm going to work now. Definitely no swingovers ever again! They're not safe. Not with passengers, and many pilots expecting to do something when ATC apparently expect something else. Something that may well not be possible (as at LHR).

Orp Tolip
6th Nov 2007, 13:24
Interesting debate, would really like to know the definative, offical answer.

Raniboe is sort of right about the SOP thing, life is so so regimented now, we seem to spend half our flying duty making decisions base on the FDM and SOP requirements as opposed to using actual common sense/airmanship..PAH!!

A sidestep can be, even relatively close in, a perfectly safe and 'commercial' procedure, but unfortunately it really depends on the operators rules as well as the crew's and ATC's preferences. Ours are stable 1000" IFR, 500" if visual.

Its probably been debated elsewhere but why is 1000" the common 'stabalised by' point, and why the need to be lined up? If everything else is on the money (config, speed,thrust, ROD, pitch etc) a little visual manouvering (limited bank angle perhaps) should be perfectly safe, or am I missing something here?

212man
6th Nov 2007, 13:29
Well, it's not in MATS Pt 1 (according to the 36 results for "missed approach" that resulted!) Where else would it be in UK docs? Local Pt 2 procedures? Will trawl through PAN Ops when a spare moment arises.....

Rainboe
6th Nov 2007, 13:33
<<Not sure where it's written down for you guys, but in our Heathrow Manual of Air Traffic Services it's in black and white that we can expect you to do the MAP for the original runway>>
Gonzo- please quote reference. Can this go in the ATC forum? It seems pretty relevant to ops today.

G-SPOTs Lost
6th Nov 2007, 13:37
Indeed - my apologies

downsouth
6th Nov 2007, 14:08
In every airport, for any approach (not talking about side step) you will fly the published missed apporach unless the atc gives you a diferent instruction... It happened once to me that I was making an ILS approach for a given runway and then was souposed to cirlce to the oposite runway, when we started to circle the atc said " In case of go around, fly heading 180 and climb 3000..." Of course, the atc would have expected us to make a missed approach for the original approach, that's why he made sure we wouldn't by giving us a diferent instruction...

If for some reason it's unsafe to do so in heathrow (when side steping), it's expectable that all controlers are told to give such instructions in time... I think that if your books say that you would expect all pilots to fly the original missed approach, then, that should be the correct proc. If making the missed approach for the runway you'r steping to was the correct and standard procedure, which applyed to every airport, then the atc controllers at heathrow wouldn't be instructed to promptly give go around instructions to "side steping" aircraft...

What do you think??

hetfield
6th Nov 2007, 14:15
@downsouth

I can tell you how it works at EDDF with 25L/R.

A swingover from 25L to 25R is mostly offered as "are you interested in 25R?"

If confirmed, the ATCO just clears you to do so. That's it.

Now the confusion is perfect, cause I always thought and briefed th M/A for the runway my wheels will be on.....

212man
6th Nov 2007, 14:16
...but in our Heathrow Manual of Air Traffic Services...

That would be the MATS part 2, which isn't readily available to view.

Gonzo
6th Nov 2007, 14:27
Heathrow Airport MATS pt.2.

Section 1 (3.3)

3.3.2 VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY

Controllers must be aware that any aircraft that is instructed to visually switch to an alternate runway, in the event of a missed approach, may expect to follow the instrument missed approach procedure for the original runway. Obviously this is not appropriate, therefore, if the aircraft is subsequently instructed to execute a missed approach, the procedure used must be included in the instruction.

This is not the standard international procedure, therefore controllers must place particular emphasis on ensuring that traffic making a visual approach will, if the need arises, execute the correct missed approach.

[my bolding]

FullWings
6th Nov 2007, 15:01
Obviously this is not appropriate, therefore, if the aircraft is subsequently instructed to execute a missed approach, the procedure used must be included in the instruction.
Very interesting. Not all go-arounds are the result of ATC instructions, so maybe it would be a good idea for the new missed approach details to be given as soon as a visual switch is accepted, before a G/A might be started?

Green Cactus
6th Nov 2007, 15:33
As far as I am aware EHAM is the exception to the rule. At EHAM you have to fly the missed approach of the landing runway. I will start looking for it, it is published in (I think) the Dutch AIP.
As we used to operate in and out of EHAM, with their sometimes close to impossible "swing overs" often, this came up at some point.

I will start looking but it has been a while.

GC

411A
6th Nov 2007, 16:14
Its probably been debated elsewhere but why is 1000" the common 'stabalised by' point, and why the need to be lined up? If everything else is on the money (config, speed,thrust, ROD, pitch etc) a little visual manouvering (limited bank angle perhaps) should be perfectly safe, or am I missing something here?
No, not missing something, and you are right about being perfectly safe, but...
The 1000 feet was/is used to accomodate less than desirable skills levels...and by this I refer to junior First Officers as well as some Captains that are having a bad hair day:rolleyes:
OTOH, small airline companies are not necessarily so constrained, and even with a large transport jet such as the L1011 that I fly, close in maneuvering if done properly is perfectly safe...and very rewarding from a handling perspective, especially for folks who enjoy hand flying the aeroplane, yours truly included.
And yes, we still do circling approaches, right down to the lowest minima possible, for a category D aircraft.
Handling skills....use 'em or lose 'em.

Spitoon
6th Nov 2007, 16:29
From a controller's perspective I would consider - and it is the assumption I made with my earlier post - a swing-over (or any similar manoeuvre) to be circling after an instrument approach. That is to say, the change to another landing runway is made visually and not a change to the ILS etc. nominated by ATC (in the latter case I would consider it to be an instrument approach to that other runway with the associated missed approach flown if it is necessary). The fact that certain aircraft operators have internal SOPs or flight profile monitoring systems that prevent pilots from accepting the manoeuvre is irrelevant to the main question here.

Reference to ICAO PANS-OPS (although I must admit that I'm not certain that it is the latest edition) includes the statementVisual manoeuvring (circling) is the term used to describe the phase of flight after an instrument approach has been completed. It brings the aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for straight-in approach, i.e. one where the criteria for alignment or descent gradient cannot be met.This does not strictly describe a swing-over but it is the closest I can find. If one accepts that a swing-over is circling, then the definitive answer seems to be given by PANS-OPS - reproduced below:MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE WHILE CIRCLING
If visual reference is lost while circling to land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed. The pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome. At this point, the pilot will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.
The circling manoeuvre may he carried out in more than one direction. For this reason, different patterns are required to establish the aircraft on the prescribed missed approach course depending on its position at the time visual reference is lost.

If, on the other hand, one does not accept a swing-over to be circling after an instrument approach, please disregard all the above!

BOAC
6th Nov 2007, 16:35
and why the need to be lined up? - there is no need to be 'lined up' otherwise a circuit would be pretty well impossible:hmm:

Most operators require 'wings level' by around 400' which copes with most places.

bookworm
6th Nov 2007, 16:39
As far as I am aware EHAM is the exception to the rule.

Well remembered!

AD 2.22 EHAM
2.8.3 Missed approach while circling to land (contrary to ICAO doc. 8168 (PANS-OPS))

* inform ATC and
* turn to the intended landing runway, intercept the runway track MAG of that runway while climbing to 2000 ft AMSL.

Like Spitoon I cannot see how a swing-over would fit with any ICAO procedure other than VM(C).

Presumably Rainboe's employer doesn't permit VM(C) as there would be a lot of "phone calls" due to full-scale ILS deviations.

Green Cactus
6th Nov 2007, 17:17
and I just found the reference! too late once again

GC

flyboyike
6th Nov 2007, 19:22
Interesting topic. I went into the AIM, 5-4-19 "Sidestep Maneuver" and 5-4-21 "Missed Approach". Neither one addresses the issue specifically. Logic would dictate, however, that one would need to fly the missed for that new runway, as it is likely designed to keep you out of someone's way, which the missed for the original runway might not.

londonmet
6th Nov 2007, 19:26
How about it A/C A approaching 27L was offered a "swing" to 27R and A/C approaching 27R was offered a "swing" to 27L. The 27L missed app procedure is to turn left and the 27R one is to turn right.

If they follow the missed app procedure for the runway they were initially cleared to approach then at some point they'd be on a collision course.

L Met

Spitoon
6th Nov 2007, 19:33
....at some point they'd be on a collision course.
I hate to disillusion anyone but with many go-around procedures ATC must act pretty quick to resolve a future conflict - that's just a fact of life with current traffic levels.

But, hey, if you want to carry on thinking up disaster scenarios that are incredibly unlikely to arise in the real world please feel free (but I'd prefer it if you did it on your own time). I guess you must be a reporter or TV producer....

londonmet
6th Nov 2007, 20:01
Spitoon thanks for another classic PPRUNE post. What value did it add to this thread? When you've thought of one, get make to me boy.

alexban
6th Nov 2007, 21:00
As we may change the FMC selected rwy fast enaugh, we will have also the go-around route selected on FMC. After selecting 'go-around' next step will be to follow the selected route,which is for the new rwy.
I've been asking many of my coleagues what will they do in case of go-around...most common answer was 'I'll ask for vectors". Next answer was 'follow the go-around for new assigned rwy'...
One of the reasons was , as said before, at many airports with parallel rwys, the go-arounds are divergent, so as to avoid collision risk.
And if you expect us to follow the initial rwy go-around procedure,and we follow the new assigned rwy procedure, you think you will always be able to make yourself heard and understood fast enaugh over the radio?
I've personally seen a scary situation with two ,same company, aircrafts when one did a late take-off and the other one did a go-around above the previous one. The controller had no chance to make itself understood by the pilots, as both crews were fully occupied, and had also, almost the same callsigns. We just stood and watched...hopefully god was also watching that day.
So,try to make it simple..and safer.No side step...or issue the go-around instructions with the side-step clearance.

Gonzo
6th Nov 2007, 21:08
I cannot ever foresee a situation where we'd want you to follow the old missed approach, hence we would always give you appropriate instructions.

I think mandating that you have to follow the new runway's missed approach procedure is unworkable, as some switches happen very late, within four miles. Are flight crew really going to brief the new missed approach procedure in that time?

What we expect, and what we want (and then what happens) are two very different things.

We expect you to follow the old runway's procedure, because that is the 'worst case scenario', so that we (ATC) do not get complacent and believe you will follow the new runway's procedure.

@londonmet, the point is that ATC would act in your case. As it stands, a normal missed approach from 27L does not separate you from 27R departures. ATC still has to act to separate you. So a similarly serious situation could happen in normal ops, if ATC don't intervene...as we are all taught to do.

Dream Land
6th Nov 2007, 21:33
I hate to disillusion anyone but with many go-around procedures ATC must act pretty quick to resolve a future conflict - that's just a fact of life with current traffic levels.

But, hey, if you want to carry on thinking up disaster scenarios that are incredibly unlikely to arise in the real world please feel free (but I'd prefer it if you did it on your own time). I guess you must be a reporter or TV producer....My thoughts exactly. :ok:

Rainboe
6th Nov 2007, 23:53
For UK ATC, we need to pause a moment and reread what has been said:
Gonzo said:
Not sure where it's written down for you guys, but in our Heathrow Manual of Air Traffic Services it's in black and white that we can expect you to do the MAP for the original runway, hence we should promptly take corrective action......implies that ATC may expect the plane to fly the MAP for the original runway- taken by many to mean that is what you should do.
Please reread MATS pt.2. as posted by Gonzo:

Section 1 (3.3)
3.3.2 VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY
Controllers must be aware that any aircraft that is instructed to visually switch to an alternate runway, in the event of a missed approach, may expect to follow the instrument missed approach procedure for the original runway. Obviously this is not appropriate, therefore, if the aircraft is subsequently instructed to execute a missed approach, the procedure used must be included in the instruction.ad the quoted MATS pt 2 when the reference was found:

This is a warning to controllers that 'watch out- pilots in the event of a GA on a swingover approach may think they have to follow the original runway GA'! and 'Obviously this is not appropriate'.

It does not mean at all that pilots should follow the original GA as was implied by several posters- it is simply that the controller should be aware that pilots may do that! Therefore the controller should issue instructions to make it clear what to do.

Nowadays, pilots will reload the new runway into the FMs, giving the go-around procedure automatically, including tracking, as well as, if time, retuning the ILS. The thought process is 'quick, get the new runway in so the GA is set!' (I've been there several times). So despite getting a considerable amount of stick, I do not think I was incorrect in my assertion (at LHR at least), that it is impractical and unsafe, and not expected either, to fly the original GA. However, for reasons pointed out, many airlines have strict stabilised approach criteria, and those pilots know for a minor fuel or time saving, it is not worth the hassle of inviting follow up phone calls as to what the hell you were doing!

Angel`s Playmate
7th Nov 2007, 08:50
Very interesting topic, `coze that`s exactly what happened to me some time back in FRA !

(For all non-FRA users-missed 25L goes left turn/25R right turn )

We were on a 4 mile final ILS 25R when a heavy B747 started it`s takeoff roll. Same time a B 777 got line-up clearance behind the departing 74.
The TWR ATCO then switched to us " xyz 123 prepare for go around or you like to swing to 25L ?" We swung ! :p

No heads down,:= no FMC punshy, no ILS retune , just flightdirectors off and land.
The app/missed for 25L had been briefed before as well, just in case App ctrl would have switched us some time on intermediate or so.

When we touched the 777 was still on it`s roll. Imagine we would have pulled up and turned back to 25R ! :confused:

Happy ldgs
Angel

NW1
7th Nov 2007, 10:45
Rainboe:

Please note that the 1000' gate is a vertical profile gate and it does not require you to be aligned with the c/l. Similarly for the "hard" 500' gate.

Regarding lateral displacement, I think other fleets are similar to mine in that you are required to be aligned at 300'. It is up to you do judge accordingly, but these SOPs certainly permit a runway switch in VMC.

You will not receive a SESMA call for LOC deviation for a runway switch - it does happen and the SESMA rep will not waste the BALPA rep's (or the crews') time for a simple manoevre such as a r/w switch unless he needs feedback to help explain the trace or there were further issues - it is normally obvious from the trace that was what happened and this situation would be recorded as "Normal Operation".

Hope this shows that things are more sensible and leave you more free to make decisions than you thought?

Rainboe
7th Nov 2007, 11:50
Yes it will now. I was initially bewildered until I realised we were interpreting the ATC rules incorrectly. It is now understood you do not fly the original GA (at LHR at least). As for other stations like FRA, it will be in local regs, but I was at AMS this week and I don't recall seeing on the Jepps anything about this- it may be buried in the airport rules somewhere, but one doesn't normally burrow deeply into them.

We do have a hard rule of no turning from the 500' gate, and I would be unhappy doing it below 1000'. The days of airliners with people doing late base turns onto finals are gone, however good a pilot you may think you are. There are others who will be outside their ability zone, so I think it is a correct regulation.

NW1
7th Nov 2007, 11:55
<<We do have a hard rule of no turning from the 500' gate>>
Please see PM

low n' slow
7th Nov 2007, 14:24
Please note that the 1000' gate is a vertical profile gate and it does not require you to be aligned with the c/l. Similarly for the "hard" 500' gate.

NW1, This is hardly a general rule is it? This is up to the operator to specify or are you and Rainboe flying for the same operator? I know of several operators, including the one I fly for, that prohibits the pilots to perform any major turns below 1000 feet. In essence it requires the flighpath to be lined up with the landing runway in my case.

/LnS

NW1
7th Nov 2007, 15:12
LnS - You're absolutely right. I don't know why, but I was sure Rainboe & I worked for the same operator, I just looked at his public profile and realise this cannot be right, so I take back all my comments, apologise, & humbly withdraw.....

PS: RB, please ignore my PM :O

BOAC
7th Nov 2007, 16:39
prohibits the pilots to perform any major turns below 1000 - how do you fly circuits?:confused:

411A
7th Nov 2007, 17:43
The days of airliners with people doing late base turns onto finals are gone, however good a pilot you may think you are.

Ah, not exactly.
Smaller charter/scheduled operators still do these maneuvers, and why not...as their pilots are trained to proficiency, not the lowest common denominator.:rolleyes::}

NW1
7th Nov 2007, 17:56
<<Smaller charter/scheduled operators still do these maneuvers, and why not...>>
As does my operator. And I agree - why not? Can't understand the fuss - in the right circumstances and with reasonable airmanship these visual manoevres offer no more risk than any other approach. If an operator bans turning below 1000' and they if they fly to JFK how the heck do they fly the VOR approach 13L?

L337
10th Nov 2007, 12:31
Rainboe:
You said. L337- we don't have such things as visual go-arounds in Europe- it's a US thing.

I posted:In the USA, you would now be "visual". So you would carry out a visual go-around not the IFR go-around.

Rainboe
10th Nov 2007, 12:48
The visual GA is a sensible thing, but it is not a feature over here- as far as I am aware, the official instrument GA is the only option available, and that is what most of us would expect to fly.

The Unstabilised Approach Criteria are pretty rigid, and if not lined up and stabilised by 500', we must GA. No ifs, buts.

Reviewing this thread- I got a lot of stick and abuse from people who thought I was wrong. I asked for one posting to be removed as it implied I was not safe to be near. And blow me down, who would we like to be flying a sidestep GA on one runway when someone is taking off on the other?

747dieseldude
10th Nov 2007, 16:41
Didn't have the stamina to read through the whole thread, but:

The best analogy for this situation is circle to land manuever. I would go for the original approach g/a procedure.

Another thought: what is the new runway doesn't have an instrument procedure?

Rainboe
10th Nov 2007, 19:46
Unless specifically instructed, you would be wrong! Why bother to post if you can't be bothered to read the thread of 4 pages?

bookworm
10th Nov 2007, 20:32
It is now understood you do not fly the original GA (at LHR at least).

Understood by whom, exactly?

PANS-OPS says:

7.4 MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE WHILE CIRCLING
7.4.1 If visual reference is lost while circling to land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed. The pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome. At this point, the pilot will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.

This might not be "appropriate" for LHR ATC, but it's absolutely by the book to fly the GA for the instrument approach for which you have been cleared, which is presumably why LHR MATS Part 2 requires an explicit instruction to the contrary.

hetfield
10th Nov 2007, 20:42
What frightens me is:

- Pilots have different ecpectations at different airports.
- ATCOS have different expectations to pilots.....

Rainboe
10th Nov 2007, 21:30
Well Bookworm, there is a blurry line between Sidestep manoeuvres and Circling approaches, but it is important to try and differentiate one from the other so that one may execute the correct GA. For a sidestep,:
Section 1 (3.3)
3.3.2 VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY
Controllers must be aware that any aircraft that is instructed to visually switch to an alternate runway, in the event of a missed approach, may expect to follow the instrument missed approach procedure for the original runway. Obviously this is not appropriate, therefore, if the aircraft is subsequently instructed to execute a missed approach, the procedure used must be included in the instruction.ad the quoted MATS pt 2 when the reference was found
Note the ATC manual does not refer to this as a 'Circling Approach'. It is a 'Visual Change of Landing Runway' A Circling Approach is when one must manoeuvre around an airfield horizontally, maintaining altitude, into the approach for a differently aligned runway. For this, the only effective GA is to turn for the original runway and execute the original GA, but this is a different animal to the Sidestep manoeuvre as the GA for that should be actioned on the new runway's procedures, as confirmed above.

G-SPOTs Lost
10th Nov 2007, 22:00
Rainboe

Having taken a time out of this thread ;) and without looking to lock horns again....

You have succesfully redirected this thread to a different subject, one of stabilised approaches.

ICAO does not make different rules for those operators that have on board monitoring.

ICAO states (and its in this thread) that you conduct the go around of the original runway if you are circling or sidestepping or whatever manouvre you wish to call it. You aim for the safe area of the overhead initially and then conduct the GA, you might not get to do it as no doubt ATC will intervene but whether you agree or not that is the procedure to follow (even at Hallowed LHR - as confirmed by a current LHR controller!!!)

Again I'll quote the original question:

Let's assume you are flying an ILS at airport with two parallel runways e.g. 27L. You are offered a swing over to 27R and you do so. For any reason a missed approach has to be conducted. Which procedure do you fly, for 27L or 27R

In our minds lets replace the 27 numbers for others just to be sure we are NOT specifically talking about LHR.

Please answer the question! Somebody makes the valid point that the other runway might not even have a IFR GA !! Think lowest common denominator.

One more point, if you are including me in the people that gave you grief then once again I apologise however and I quote you:

You have no experience at airline ops at airports like LHR, so your answer is misleading.

Which sounded very pompous and arrogant (hence my later tone), I wont hold my breath for an apology nor do I particularly want one. I will take solace in the fact that even though the correct facts have been posted here you still wish to ignore them /your peers / LHR ATC and seem desperate to keep pursueing your incorrect theory by tring to make the facts fit.

You are obviously a very experienced guy (as detailed by you on another thread) so that commands a certain amount of respect, however the only thing to be confirmed by you in this thread is the age old adage that we are all still learning - perhaps even you.

Intruder
10th Nov 2007, 22:10
Rainboe:
I repeat- we are not talking circling approaches! ATC have switched you to another runway.
Waitaminutehere!

What is the official definition of a "swing over" or "swing across" in CAA/JAA jargon? There is no such official terminology in the US, and I have never heard it before.

In the US there are 4 possibilities for changing runways:

1) Change to the ILS for the new runway, if you are outside the FAF for the original one. In that case, missed approach would be for the new runway approach.

2) Circle to land on the new runway. In that case, the missed approach would be for the original approach.

3) Sidestep to the parallel runway. This is ONLY valid when the sidestep is published for the approach to the original runway. Missed approach is still for the original approach.

4) Visual approach to the parallel runway. Since you are now visual, missed approach will be per ATC (Tower) instructions.

Intruder
10th Nov 2007, 22:23
but it is important to try and differentiate one from the other so that one may execute the correct GA. For a sidestep,:
Quote:
Section 1 (3.3)
3.3.2 VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY
NO!!!

A sidestep is NOT a "visual change"! It is a specific clearance for a specific INSTRUMENT approach with specific INSTRUMENT minimums!

FAA AIM 5-4-19:

5-4-19. Side-step Maneuver

a. ATC may authorize a standard instrument approach procedure which serves either one of parallel runways that are separated by 1,200 feet or less followed by a straight-in landing on the adjacent runway.

b. Aircraft that will execute a side-step maneuver will be cleared for a specified approach procedure and landing on the adjacent parallel runway. Example, "cleared ILS runway 7 left approach, side-step to runway 7 right." Pilots are expected to commence the side-step maneuver as soon as possible after the runway or runway environment is in sight.

NOTESide-step minima are flown to a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) regardless of the approach authorized.

c. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.

hetfield
11th Nov 2007, 08:17
@Intruder

Yes, the thread was about VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY.

regards

Rainboe
11th Nov 2007, 10:53
GSPOT- I like to know I am talking to experienced large jet pilots. Your profile says 'Cessna', which means to me a little high wing thing with a paddle on the front. If it's something heavier, perhaps you would put it in your profile? Then one would know if you were likely to have actually flown into London.

Despite the regulations being large, there are still grey areas. One is the narrow gap between Circling and Sidestep manoeuvres. It takes common sense to assess one from the other. It is not common sense, for example, at LHR to Sidestep, then fly the original GA, taking you over the airport to the other side and overhead what may be traffic taking off from the runway you are not using. Therefore in this, and many other examples, a Circling GA is plainly not common sense- as evidenced by the admission in the MATS regulations that 'this is obviously not a good idea.... so the controller should be prepared for it'. People can argue to the last full stop that it is- it is daft. If other places have local regulations in place, then that's clear.

Intruder has made a clear post with the most sensible set of rules I have see:
Waitaminutehere!

What is the official definition of a "swing over" or "swing across" in CAA/JAA jargon? There is no such official terminology in the US, and I have never heard it before.

In the US there are 4 possibilities for changing runways:

1) Change to the ILS for the new runway, if you are outside the FAF for the original one. In that case, missed approach would be for the new runway approach.

2) Circle to land on the new runway. In that case, the missed approach would be for the original approach.

3) Sidestep to the parallel runway. This is ONLY valid when the sidestep is published for the approach to the original runway. Missed approach is still for the original approach.

4) Visual approach to the parallel runway. Since you are now visual, missed approach will be per ATC (Tower) instructions.

So is it sensible for a pilot to assume that in (4) he should do, what would be utterly stupid and fly the original GA, leading a pilot to execute a 90 degree turn overhead LHR, crossing over the other runway turning through 90 degrees, for example. Follow most people's guidance here, and that is what they think he should do. It's a great hole in UK ATC regulations, and it is important because LHR is so overloaded sometimes you literally cannot get a word in to get instructions for a GA, and the controllers instructions may be drowned out by a whistle as 2 other people try and get a word in.

bookworm
11th Nov 2007, 10:58
Well Bookworm, there is a blurry line between Sidestep manoeuvres and Circling approaches, but it is important to try and differentiate one from the other so that one may execute the correct GA.

There are only three sorts of approaches for IFR flights contemplated by PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM:

1) A straight in instrument approach where the landing runway is the instrument runway

2) An instrument approach followed by visual circling where the landing runway is not the instrument runway

3) A visual approach

There is no such thing as a "Sidestep manoeuvre". Your action in the event of a missed approach will depend on the nature of your clearance.

1) If the clearance is for an instrument approach for the new runway ("cleared ILS approach 27L") then you fly in accordance with the new IAP. This is clearly only possible if the landing runway (27L here) is an instrument runway, which is not, as far as I know, a prerequisite for the manoeuvre that hetfield asked the original question about. It is hard to see how such a clearance would be offered and/or accepted at anything other than range long enough to allow the crew to rebrief. I don't believe the "swing overs" under discussion fall into this category.

2) If the modification of the clearance is to land on a different runway, I can see no difference between this and a visual manoeuvring (circling) procedure, and the missed approach for that procedure sould be followed. Spitoon and I have already quoted that, and it consists, ultimately, of flying the missed approach for the original instrument runway.

3) If the modification of the clearance is for a visual approach to a different runway, there is no provision for an instrument missed approach. The aircraft is expected to remain visual.

According to Intruder's description, the FAA defines a fourth category, the sidestep, which appears to be substantially the same as visual manoeuvring (circling) but possibly with lower minima.

Either local procedures (e.g. EHAM) or specific instructions from ATC can override these ICAO defaults. Heathrow MATS Pt 2 clearly requires the latter, an explicit set of instructions to follow.

While it is undoubtedly prudent to use one's experience and awareness of ATC procedures to build an expectation of what may be required by explicit instruction at particular airports, in general the PANS-OPS procedures need to be followed, and I think that's what hetfield was asking.

Intruder
11th Nov 2007, 11:25
Hetfield
Yes, the thread was about VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY.
That was not clear at all, which is why I asked for the definition of "swing over."
If you are flying a visual approach to a different runway than that to which you started the initial approach, the missed approach instructions for that instrument approach no longer apply. You must get instructions from ATC, either at the time of the clearance or from Tower when you start the missed approach.
Rainboe
So is it sensible for a pilot to assume that in (4) he should do, what would be utterly stupid and fly the original GA, leading a pilot to execute a 90 degree turn overhead LHR, crossing over the other runway turning through 90 degrees, for example.
No, and nowhere did I suggest it. Per FAA AIM 5-4-22.e:
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 airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower.
The FAA clearly places the responsibility on ATC (Tower) to provide missed approach instructions. If Tower is momentarily busy, it would be appropriate to climb on runway heading to 800' AGL (or higher if terrain dictates) while waiting for Tower to issue the isntructions. I suspect that once the Tower controller sees an approaching airplane start to climb and/or hears the "go around" report, he will make it a priority to communicate with that airplane.

Specifically at LHR, a prudent alternative while awaiting ATC instructions would be to follow the Jepp 11-5 or 11-6 page, "Procedures to follow in the event of radio failure following a missed approach." Start the procedure for the runway to which the FINAL approach to intended landing was made.

bookworm
11th Nov 2007, 11:54
That was not clear at all, which is why I asked for the definition of "swing over."
If you are flying a visual approach to a different runway...

Intruder

I think this may be an unhelpful a terminology difference. The ICAO term is "visual manoeuvring (circling)" for what is called a "circling approach" in the US. That is not the same as a "visual approach". Both would, at least in my estimation, be construed as VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY for the purpose of hetfield's question.

It appears that the FAA terminology and procedures, which you have explained with great clarity, are much easier to interpret to answer hetfield's question.

G-SPOTs Lost
11th Nov 2007, 12:18
Rainboe, I will leave the willy waving to you. You are on of the very few users on here that feel the need to actually document your experience levels in black and white to help prove your point, others don't feel the need to

You assumed the biggest thing I fly is a Cessna 152, quite happy barrelling along at FL450 and .80 thankyou very much. (Shame its not at the same time)

Assumptions dont help the debate, Most people assume that your working life consists of only flying four sectors a month and only do two landings stumbling between radar environments disengaging the AP at 200ft before landing on your 10000ft runway - not me...... ;)

And for the last time please forget about LHR!!!!! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Please answer the original question for gods sake without mentioning a large two runway London Airport or Flight monitoring

BOAC
11th Nov 2007, 12:18
Is there any chance of forgetting about 'circling approaches' here as the original question did not involve those, and they are really only serving to confuse?

I assume Hetfield asks about LATE changes to landing runway, which I have experienced (and either accepted or declined) at several airfields in my time. The USA IFR clearance ILS 07R with sidestep to 07L would be easier to solve as there would be time to look at any G/A for 07L. With the later change I have always assumed my G/A would be straight ahead and then into the circuit unless there is an ATC specified alternative. since I am flying a purely visual manoeuvre.

It is MOST UNWISE and very poor airmanship to go head down and start pushing FMC buttons for a runway change at a late stage and I have seen command and line checks failed for that.

bookworm
11th Nov 2007, 12:54
Is there any chance of forgetting about 'circling approaches' here as the original question did not involve those, and they are really only serving to confuse?

I don't agree BOAC. IAP to one runway, landing on another is a circling approach.

BOAC
11th Nov 2007, 13:03
Not on this side of the pond! Runway directions need to be at least 30 deg apart to qualify.

G-SPOTs Lost
11th Nov 2007, 13:16
I think its fair to say that it does depend on conditions as to what we would do on any given day at any airport.

BOAC you are quite correct this is a classic sim gotcha especiialy when training with US instructors for JAA ratings, you achieve circling minima with the RW environment in sight and commence the circle, 1/2 way around they ratchet down the ceiling and see what happens.

IN the US it is as clear cut as intruders post, maybe not so crystal over here.....

I appreciate the point about forgeting about circling as the original question wasn't about that and I am struggling to conceive a situation where a "sidesteppy" kind of visual procedeure woud be required in the UK, maybe a blocked 24R at MAN with a stiff westerly and good viz under low cloud??


Getting back to the original question, there must be a catch all directive for all airports from ICAO to prevent there being as many different concepts about missed approaches after "repositioning" than Pilots, having seen the discussion, I think that point has been cleared up, local exemptions to standard procedure can be published and notes made on the Jepps as required or indeed ATC forewarned that where local procedures or exemptions are not present then anticipate the problem and control the air traffic accordingly.

Intruder
11th Nov 2007, 14:16
The ICAO term is "visual manoeuvring (circling)" for what is called a "circling approach" in the US. That is not the same as a "visual approach". Both would, at least in my estimation, be construed as VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY for the purpose of hetfield's question.
Actually, that is not the case.
A circling approach is relatively well defined. A clearance is given for a specific approach, e.g., "Cleared VOR 13 Approach, circle to land Rwy 18." In that case the missed approach procedures for the VOR 13 Approach are still in effect.
In a late-breaking "Do you want 25L instead of 24R?" situation (assuming VMC), the approach to 24R is terminated, and a visual approach to 25L is commenced from that point. There is NO clearance to "intercept ILS final for 25L" or similar, therefore it is a VISUAL approach from the point it is accepted, and there is no defined missed approach procedure (excepting the airport-specific cases such as the general lost comm procedures for LHR).
Again, it is ALWAYS the responsibility of ATC to provide specific missed approach instructions in the latter case, and in the former case if they do NOT want you to do the missed approach per the VOR 13 procedure.

bookworm
11th Nov 2007, 14:42
Not on this side of the pond! Runway directions need to be at least 30 deg apart to qualify.

I still don't agree.

PANS-OPS Vol 2 Part I Section 4 Ch 5
5.2.3 Circling approach
The circling approach contains the visual phase of flight after completing an instrument approach, to bring an aircraft into position for landing on a runway that for operational reasons is not suitably located for straight-in approach. In addition, when the final approach track alignment or the descent gradient does not meet the criteria for a straight-in landing, only a circling approach shall be authorized and the track alignment should ideally he made to the centre of the landing area.

If the landing runway direction is more than 30 degrees off the IAP runway direction, the final approach track alignment criteria are not met and only circling approaches are permitted. But that doesn't mean that it's the only circumstance in which a circling approach is required.

In the case of a parallel landing runway separated by more than 150 m, the following criterion comes into play:

5.2.2.2 Final approach with track not intersecting the extended runway centre line. A final approach which does not intersect the extended centre line of the runway (theta equal to or less than 5 degrees) may also he established, provided such track lies within 150 m laterally of the extended runway centre line at a distance of 1 400 m outward from the runway threshold (see Figure 1-4-5-1).

The criterion is clearly not met, and the only approach permitted to the parallel runway is a circling approach.

A swingover manoeuvre is either a circling approach or a visual approach.

bookworm
11th Nov 2007, 15:11
Actually, that is not the case.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing. The swingover can be implemented in two ways: you describe them well, though the first example (circling approach) would serve the purposes of the question better if it were "Cleared VOR 13R Approach, circle to land Rwy 13L." The second (visual approach) would entail "cleared visual approach 13L" at some point on the 13R approach.

I suspect that rarely is either phraseology used explicitly, otherwise the answer to hetfield's question would be obvious, wouldn't it? More likely it sounds like:

"Bigbird 123 can you accept 13L"
"Affirm, Bigbird 123"
"Bigbird 123 runway 13L cleared to land"

Which case is that? If it's a visual approach, what precautions have been taken to ensure "that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed", which is a requirement of the visual approach. The pilot has not explicitly accepted a visual approach.

Loose rivets
11th Nov 2007, 17:18
I moved over from left to right at about 300' at LHR. No problem as it was a Viscount (and it was c1965.)

The landing ahead of us was throwing rubber off the runway in vast ribbons. For all the world, they looked as if they were coming up to our height!

Intruder
12th Nov 2007, 11:07
"Bigbird 123 can you accept 13L"
"Affirm, Bigbird 123"
"Bigbird 123 runway 13L cleared to land"
Which case is that? If it's a visual approach, what precautions have been taken to ensure "that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed", which is a requirement of the visual approach. The pilot has not explicitly accepted a visual approach.
I contend that it is abandoning the published instrument approach for a visual approach. Since we don't know that circling minimums are published for the approach in question, or that circling is allowed for the approach, I believe you are switching from one approach to another.

Also, it is poor ATC terminology, and serves to cause the type of confusion being discussed here.

You accepted a visual approach when you said "Affirm." Since you were not cleared for an instrument approach to the new runway, the ATC controller must assume you have the airport and new runway in sight. Also, the OP clarified that he was indeed asking about a visual change of runway.

If you want to contend that it is a circling approach from the original instrument approach procedure (assuming it has published circling minimums), then you must accept that the published missed approach procedure applies unless specifically instructed otherwise by ATC.

bookworm
12th Nov 2007, 11:55
I contend that it is abandoning the published instrument approach for a visual approach.

OK. I think your assumption that the aircraft forgoes the option of an instrument go-around merely by accepting that it can land on a different runway is verging on unreasonable. In my scenario, it may not even be able to see the airport at the moment of that exchange.

Also, it is poor ATC terminology, and serves to cause the type of confusion being discussed here.

I agree. That's really at the heart of the thread, though, isn't it? If ATC makes the type of clearance explicit, you know what to do for the missed. Perhaps the lesson from this thread for ATC is to make the type of approach quite explicit(?).

Also, the OP clarified that he was indeed asking about a visual change of runway.

But a circling approach (and the sidestep you described) is a visual procedure. If you don't get the appropriate visual reference by MDA, you can't continue with the circling/sidestep. If ATC could always wait until the aircraft was visual with the airport before issuing a visual approach to another runway, we'd have no need in general for circling approaches or sidesteps. You'd just wait until they'd broken out on the 13 approach and then clear them for a visual approach for 18. So the circling approach caters for a situation in which you know well in advance that you want the aircraft to land on a different runway.

BTW, can you give an example of a published sidestep, please? I don't think I've seen one.

Intruder
12th Nov 2007, 14:36
For the sidestep, see Anchorage (PANC) ILS or LOC DME Rwy 7R.

Now, assume Approach or Tower asks you as above, "Can you accept 13L," as you are inbound on the VOR/LOC/ILS?NDB 13R approach. You are currently IMC. How can you accept the change in runway if you cannot see it? How do you know you will be in a position to make a normal approach and landing on 13L after you break out? In that case, the ONLY way to land on 13L is to continue on the 13R approach until you break out, and then and circle to land on 13L IF AND ONLY IF you break out above circling minimums. If there are no circling minimums published for that 13R approach, you CANNOT land on 13L from that approach because it is NOT AUTHORIZED! If you have to go around FOR ANY REASON, you are obligated to follow the missed approach procedures for the 13R approach unless instructed otherwise by ATC. PERIOD!

OTOH, if you are VMC when offered the change of runway, and you accept, you SHOULD be cleared for a visual approach to 13L. You abandon the VOR/LOC/ILS/NDB approach to 13R in favor of a visual approach to 13L.

I believe anything other than a clearance for a "visual approach" or "circle to land" (or "sidestep" where appropriate) is a mistake in ATC clearance. If you receive only the "Cleared to land" as above, you should respond with something like, "Understand cleared visual approach (or circle to land) and cleared to land 13 LEFT." If ATC has something else in mind, it is now their responsibility to correct your misunderstanding.

bookworm
12th Nov 2007, 15:33
(Thanks for the example.)

I think you summarize it perfectly.

If ATC knows that a landing on 13L would be preferable from the outset, and 13R has circling minima published (most UK IAPs do have circling minima, BTW), I would have thought that a clearance for the "ILS 13R circle to land 13L" would offer least surprise for the crew.

Pilot Pete
12th Nov 2007, 22:17
Rainboe
The days of airliners with people doing late base turns onto finals are gone Incorrect. Try Samos for one, where the 90 degree offset VOR approach requires a visual manoeuvre which has you rolling out in final at 400ft. Or how about Madeira runway 05? Following the curved lead in lights has you lined up at 313ft above the threshold. Or the other end, where you remain left of the extended centreline literally until just before touchdown due to terrain proximity. Just because Big Airways go to mainly big airfields doesn't mean everyone else only does this.

Bookworm
There is no such thing as a "Sidestep manoeuvre". Better tell Jepp and the Spanish then as Gran Canaria has a ILS to 03L with ILS minima and LOC only to SIDESTEP to 03R minima published.......

PP

G-SPOTs Lost
12th Nov 2007, 23:20
PP Good point

BA go to Nice - Blue Bay (cant remember the numbers ) for R22 is fairly sporting, watched in awe from Kilo (abeam the 22 numbers) when a 777 did it (Very well too!).

Dream Land
13th Nov 2007, 02:43
Lot's of good information from posters, something to think about, from personal experiences when the field is IFR, and a side step maneuver is expected (using circling mins), a missed approach would be based on the original approach procedure, on the other hand if the field is VFR and the tower offers me a runway change for some reason, I would expect missed approach instructions from the tower. :hmm:

bookworm
13th Nov 2007, 09:02
Better tell Jepp and the Spanish then as Gran Canaria has a ILS to 03L with ILS minima and LOC only to SIDESTEP to 03R minima published.......

The title of the approach is actually ILS/DME 03L LATERAL OFFSET 03R, but your point stands. The minima are published as "Sidestep RWY 03R" in the straight-in section. But I think the approach technically qualifies as a straight in approach for 03R for the purposes of PANS-OPS.

Intruder
13th Nov 2007, 21:29
The days of airliners with people doing late base turns onto finals are gone
I guess you don't fly into JFK... The Canarsie approach to 13 is alive and well!

Rainboe
14th Nov 2007, 21:16
I guess you don't fly into JFK... The Canarsie approach to 13 is alive and well!
I have actually done the Canarsie approach countless times from the early 70s to 2005 when I finished on B747s! I now fly 737s and do not think people flying passengers on visual short finals turns in airliners is to be recommended! The Canarsie is a special approach procedure which is tightly controlled, with visual guidance, and works well. Whacking around a tight circuit at a Greek island- very different, not nearly as safe. We also have some very inexperienced pilots who need at least 500' to get into the slot. .They have enough to contend with with my operating practices as it is without petrifying them on dazzling turns at low altitudes. Even BA does not want turns below 500'

Mikhail Sharpowicz
14th Nov 2007, 21:16
Regards low turns on approaches - Has anyone done the approach to Tegucigalpa in Honduras?!?! :eek: - Now that's low!!!! About 200ft tops over the rocks on the short finals. It's more like ridge soaring in a glider than coming in to land.
ps What Intruder said.

Pilot Pete
15th Nov 2007, 20:31
Whacking around a tight circuit at a Greek island- very different, not nearly as safe. Not quite what was said, Rainboe. Samos is a 90 degree offset VOR approach down to 1850' minima. Then if visual you break off left or right to turn onto a very short (1nm) final to the east/west runway. It is THE required manoeuvre to make a landing, not some 'whack around a tight circuit' as you put it. With the Meltemi winds prevelant in the area it can be pretty sporting, but is certainly still done by those of us checked into there.........:ok:

PP

bubbers44
15th Nov 2007, 23:04
MS, check out my retirement flight into TGU, Tegucigalpa, Honduras videoed by a fellow recently retired pilot from the jump seat of the B757. I spent the last six years flying into this airport and enjoyed every one of them.
www.flightlevel350.com Search MHTG. Doug