Missed approaches... Tracks or Headings

[oxi]

Just a thought what do you all reckon?

In the case of missed approaches and inparticular off an NDB, why when it is expressed in terms of "Track" does it not refer to interception of an outbound radial when the real definition of the actual direction of the missed approach is a Heading.

For me if I know that if I am directed to maintain a heading then the charted obstacles below are well away no matter what the wind is doing.

BUT!

If reference is made to a "Track" then I'm to intercept a radial... no doubt because there is something worth worrying about below.

If you have a look at the Scone missed approach off the NDB its very clear "track to intercept 355 from the NDB"...... great easy! This puts you up the valley.

If you have a look at Richmond NSW "turn right track 020", so would I work harder to get on the actual 020 outbound? Which is a huge intercept.

And then look at the Wollongong "turn left track 080", look at the diagram there is no way you will end up intercepting the radial!

The majority of NDB missed approaches are easy as the missed approach is a continuation of the final approach such as Roma 014 in, 014 out easy the word "Track" works with that.

All I am trying to get at is that in the middle of the night when I never been to some of these place's the wording means alot..

"Heading" all cool the possible wind is accounted for and where I may end up because of it....all good.

"Track" chase the outbound radial.


I am very interested to hear your comments.

[alexthepilot]

mate when is just says 'Track ***' this means once you commence the MAP use a heading to give you that track, this doesn't mean intercept a track from the NDB/VOR of *** . As you said some do say 'Track to intercept' but others don't, why it says that i dont know maybe it is because some are more terrain criticle and require you to be more accurate while some aren't so critical and and a round track figure can be use'd.

[FullySickBro]

OK I'll have a stab at this one.

Firstly radials refer to VOR. Bearings refer to NDBs.

When you track a bearing off an NDB (whether to or from) you are adjusting for the wind component i.e. holding drift to account for wind and maintain a constant bearing.

Headings are just that- hold a constant magnetic heading and the wind will decide the track over the ground e.g. heading 090 wind is a stiff southerly then your track would be say 078...

So if Wol missed approach says track to intercept 080 then my interpretation is to intercept bearing 080 from the Wol NDB.

Think you might have a couple of definitions mixed up there oxi but having said that I have had a couple of pre dinner drinks so someone more suitably qualified (and sober) might correct me :}

[BrokenConrod]

Hey come on here! Have standards really deteriorated to this level?

If it says "track" it means track! That does not mean take up a heading, it means that you should use all of your knowledge and skills to make a serious attempt to maintain the required track by laying off appropriate drift.

If they want you to intercept a particular track with reference to the VOR or NDB, the chart will say so.

If they wanted you to just take up a heading and disregard drift, THE CHART WOULD SAY SO !

.....or so it was hammered into me by the highly experienced ATO who did my IR!

BC :}

[Dragun]

Had this one out with CASA a few years ago. Unless the pictorial represention actually depicts turning to intercept the track reference the navaid (which some do) then you just turn onto the heading that would give you track in nil wind and adjust heading as necessary to maintain that track. No need to intercept bearings or radials.

Checks PANS OPS in the CAAP for more information.

[Wing Root]

I knew I'd seen this before....

IFR: Missed approach tracking requirements (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=288439)

[harrowing]

Broken Conrod
Well said and to the point.:ok:

[Arm out the window]

Furthermore, in the AIP blurb it says that IAP are to be flown with allowance for wind to make good the tracks published in the plates, or something to that effect.
For a non-'bearing intercept and then track' missed approach in nil wind that obviously means fly the published headings, otherwise set a heading according to what the wind's doing.

[ZEEBEE]

If it says "track" it means track! That does not mean take up a heading, it means that you should use all of your knowledge and skills to make a serious attempt to maintain the required track by laying off appropriate drift.

The few dozen NDB missed approaches I've done (most in training or renewals) I've always taken up a heading that ought to have resulted in a reasonable track from the wind as determined during the approach, and no instructor/examiner ever criticized me for it.

However, in reality you can't establish an accurate track UNLESS you intercept an outbound bearing from the NDB. If the heading is approximated (without calculating it first), one would have hoped that there's enough slop in the MA procedure to accept the error in tracking that could occur.

In a strong wind, that could be substantial. There are a couple in PNG that can take your breath away if you get it wrong.:(

[OzExpat]

In a strong wind, that could be substantial. There are a couple in PNG that can take your breath away if you get it wrong.:(
Hello ZEEBEE, in the PNG context, I'm sure you think about the general impact of a "strong wind" on the local weather. Short of a tropical cyclone, the impact is likely to be positive rather than negative and, in that instance, are you REALLY going to fly a non-precision approach for anything other than recency?

Finally, would you care to give us all an example of one, or more, of those "take your breath away" procedures that I've designed for PNG?

[oxi]

Thanks everyone for your imput, Zeebee pretty much has it for my money

If the missed approach is refered to as a Track this should always mean to intercept a bearing or radial out-bound then we all know that we are sweet.

So a Track in IFR can only refer to the particular nav aid, reference to a track over the ground is crazy! (ain't that VFR stuff).


However if the missed approach mearly refers to a Heading then immediatly we can assume that holding whatever *** that maybe will cause us no grief what so ever in the case of winds etc.


I think it should be that simple.

Of course during the entrie approach we reference the navaid for track maintenance and its only on the out-bound during a holding we can only approximate for wind effects, but given the safety of altituide in the holding pattern it isn't a problem.

The missed approach is very different and I believe this simple wording change important.

Track.....chase the needle.
Bearing...Hold the bug.



.....All agree?????

[GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn]

Track.....chase the needle. Bearing...Hold the bug.

NO !

Track = make good a track (not necessarily in relation to an NDB bearing or VOR radial) ie make some provision for drift if applicable!
Heading = fly a heading ie dont make provision for drift!

Geeeeeeeez!
GG :cool:

[Capt Wally]

I think some here are missing the point. If it says missed appr is trk *** then you maneuver to make good that track. But remember you may not always have that aid to track off as a back bearing etc. What if it failed (or yr equip) & you flew by DR to the MAP then tracked via the MAP trk?
These types of approaches have been surveyed to cover a huge area of intolerance, the +/- 5 deg's is what we ought to strive for but it's not possible with a failed aid for Eg. hence it's actually not that critical.


CW

[Dragun]

Read PANS OPS! The international criteria by which each approach is designed! Judging by a lot of the responses in here I'd say a lot of people have never even heard of them, let alone read them. No guessing required. You'll find all aspects of the approach (entry, holding, tracking, missed approach) are designed with up to 50kts of wind. That allows for a good deal of error.

[GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn]

If you're outbound in the holding pattern associated with an NDB, should you be flying a heading or a track? Obviously you are NOT flying directly away from the aid on a defined bearing.

Read the book - but don't ask me for the reference - its been too long!

GG :cool:

[ZEEBEE]

Finally, would you care to give us all an example of one, or more, of those "take your breath away" procedures that I've designed for PNG?

No criticism of your approaches Oz :) It's just that after doing half the NDB's in Australia, going to PNG and expecting to do the same makes you realise that it's for keeps.

It's been a while but Guerney would be one that I would classify such. Looking at the whole approach, the need to maintain the tracking tolerances down the valley makes you wish that you'd done more serious NDB's or paid better attention to Aminta when she said that "your life is on the line" :eek:

[ZEEBEE]

Track = make good a track (not necessarily in relation to an NDB bearing or VOR radial) ie make some provision for drift if applicable!

Yes, but in IMC with only an NDB as a reference, how do you KNOW that you are maintaining the specified track ?

Yes, you can offset for drift, but if you get it wrong, you will NOT make good that track and you won't KNOW until you hit the tower.

OK, worst case, but in cloud I WANT to know that my trrack is what it says.

[GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn]

ZEEBEE, we are talking missed approaches here which means that you have flown the approach or at least part of it. That being the case you should have a reasonable idea of the wind and make a fair shot at allowing for appropriate drift.

If not - maybe you would be better off staying out of IMC!

The design of the approaches is such that the slop in the system is accounted for!

GG :cool:

[Dragun]

Godsgift - agreed.


Zeebee

It's the same as when you fly IFR in cloud and you're allowed to go outside the rated coverage of navaids with allowances for +/-9degrees track error as long as you get a fix every 2 hours. It's called dead reckoning.

Even if the wind is 50kts and you hold heading as track you will be fine. Now if you hold drift as well (as you're supposed to) you're even more fine. That's the way it is.

On top of that, GPS' have a tracking reference (and most IFR aircraft these days have a GPS) - all you have to do is adjust your heading until the tracking says what you want it to. Then you're holding perfect drift. Too easy.

[OzExpat]

You'll find all aspects of the approach (entry, holding, tracking, missed approach) are designed with up to 50kts of wind. That allows for a good deal of error.

Not necessarily true for the missed approach, Dragun, particularly if a turn is required at low level. In any event, I had an idea that the concept of a track in the missed approach is explained in the AIP. Judging by the way this discussion started and seems to generally have continued, perhaps it's no longer detailed in the AIP? :confused:

Captain Wally is right - the missed approach might be needed at that most critical of all positions in the approach (ie approaching the MAPt), when either the navaid fails, or your receiver fails. This is what is intended by use of the word "track" when not accompanied by a reference to the navaid.

[OzExpat]

It's been a while but Guerney would be one that I would classify such. Looking at the whole approach, the need to maintain the tracking tolerances down the valley makes you wish that you'd done more serious NDB's or paid better attention to Aminta when she said that "your life is on the line" :eek:

I don't recall Aminta ever saying that but, then, I guess that I've never needed a briefing from her on instrument approaches in PNG. :} I don't know about the approaches being "for keeps", but at least you now have a better idea of the extent of the protection area provided for a NDB base-turn procedure huh? :ok:

I confess that I used to be bothered by the missed approach terminology that used the word "track", with or without reference to a navaid. I solved the problem in PNG by using the expression "DR Track" to differentiate instances where navaid guidance is not required from circumstances where it's absolutely essential. As ZEEBEE and some others may have found, the different conventional approaches at Gurney highlight the difference between navaid guidance and non-navaid tracking.

[oxi]

Sorry again I think Zeebee has it the kiss method works everytime, and just imagine if the wording refered to Track as opposed to Heading and visa V then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes this doesn't seem to be a big issue and there isn't a CFIT trend happening but its somethink which seems to draw attenchion every year.

GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn mate if we are expected to maintain tolerences then why shouldn't the wording be clear to avoid us going throught this fuss, Tracks, headings and looking at a bloody diagram. i disagree completly with your comments.

But thanks for your difinitions..

The mention of position fixing and dead reckoning etc by whoever also misses the point, yes the GPS is handy but again you cannot maintain a track unless it has a reference way point that aint gonna work when we arn't to intercept a bearing etc.... so here we go again back to square one!

Regards

oxi

[Dragun]

yes the GPS is handy but again you cannot maintain a track unless it has a reference way point that aint gonna work when we arn't to intercept a bearing

Completely and utterly incorrect. Your understanding of tracking is way WAY off if you honestly believe that. Reference waypoint? Intercepting bearing? A magnetic track is just that - a magnetic track! It doesn't matter how you follow it or what you use. If you fly from point A to point B and keep a track of say 360, then you have successfully maintained track!

You're thinking of using a GPS tracking from fixed lat and longs built in as user waypoints. You can fly in free space with NO waypoints, bearing or anything loaded onto the GPS and it will still give you accurate tracking information if you bring up whatever screen it is that displays your current track.

Please tell me you were joking?

[ZEEBEE]

A magnetic track is just that - a magnetic track! It doesn't matter how you follow it or what you use. If you fly from point A to point B and keep a track of say 360, then you have successfully maintained track!

Dragun,
Sorry to sound like a broken MP3 player (used to be "record", but who's seen one of those lately?) . It's all very well to say fly a track, but how do you KNOW that you're making good the required trk if you're in IMC with terrain close by. And wind conditions CAN change on the climb, but that's probably within tolerences. My concern is if you get it wrong, you'll never know without a reference point.
Sure you can lay off expected drift, but in some cases you haven't flown the heading that's called up in the MA procedure to establish the drift required. What're you gonna do? Get out the trusty E6B? Rememeber, the procedure wasn't written for people who have a GPS on board otherwise you'd do a GPS approach, wouldn't you?

[ZEEBEE]

I don't recall Aminta ever saying that but, then, I guess that I've never needed a briefing from her on instrument approaches in PNG. I don't know about the approaches being "for keeps", but at least you now have a better idea of the extent of the protection area provided for a NDB base-turn procedure huh?

Aminta probably said lots of things about my flying that you never heard:}

And yes, THAT approach in a Baron certainly made me aware of where I was.

I was always taught that instrument approaches are serious stuff...You can die if you get it wrong. Never forgotten it:uhoh:

[capt787]

well if you have the garman 430, on the NAV page there is a box called "TRK" and thats the tracking info u need in a MA.

the idea of 'track 090' means turn the aircraft to a heading which gives you an approx DR track of 090, climb away as fast as you can (full pwr @ Vy and clean up the aircraft.). when they build an airport they have established an approx 3nm of obstacle clearence zone around the rwy (which is the reason you can circle down from LSALT to circuit height at night under VFR), and that gives you appox 1-2 minutes to figure out what to do. ie. whether you can make to missed approach gradient or not. if not, i would say circle overhead the AD and climb back to MSA.

also provide both of your engine is running there is no reason why you would not make the 2.5% missed approach gradient. IMHO i think it is more important to clean up the aircraft (ie. fives up in GA or whatever they have to fly a jet) and get the best climb performance out of the aircraft rather than trying to find the exact TMG or doing ziczag to intercept any navaid because i know i can get at lease 8% climb gradient with two engine in a hot day, and if i fly within 5 degrees of the DR track i can easily outclimb any obstacle under the missed approach track with that climb performance.

i totally agree with ZEEBEE about instrument approach is seriously stuff, especially if you are doing single pilot IFR. and thats the reason why the old dogs (sorry guys:\) have develop all these short cut to help us reducing the work load in an approach. there is no doubt that maintain an accurate track is important (you certainly don't want to head for the wrong direction don't you), however IMHO in an missed approach climbing performance of the aircraft is more important than tracking accuracy in DR.

open to be correct/fire upon/shot at :\

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

also provide both of your engine is running

I always seem to struggle with that bit!

Dr :}

[oxi]

Well try in in a helicopter....... its hands and feet everywhere!!!!


Thanks everyone for your inmput I think the various answers proves we could do with a simpler reference, Capt 787 and Zeebee I think you guys have given the practical replies without the somtimes usual knocking etc.

Safe flying all.

[Dragun]

Rememeber, the procedure wasn't written for people who have a GPS on board otherwise you'd do a GPS approach, wouldn't you?

Without going too much deeper into this, the simple answer is no. Depends on your the TSO of your RNAV, database currency and whole bunch of other things.

I understand the basics of your concern, but unless you have signifcant wind and significant error in your dead reckoning, the cause for concern is unfounded. There are many many things in aviation where buffers have been built in that you probably use every day, a lot of which you may not even be aware. As was said, the most important part is to clean up and get away from the ground.

The answer to this question quite simply (and for a number of reasons), is that you make good a track using drift for estimated or known wind and trust the procedure design. You don't intercept a track with reference to the navaid, unless the procedure specifically shows it. I don't want to sound like a broken record either, but again, it's all detailed in PANS OPS. CASA and the FAA will also confirm this if you ask them politely. That's not my opinion and I didn't design it and in the end, it doesn't really matter who agrees with whose opinion in this case because that's the answer. If people disagree wtih the way the procedure was designed then your best bet would be to write to the appropriate authorities and attempt to have it changed.

With regard to the use of GNSS/RNAV for tracking, I'm going to assume you haven't had much experience using them and leave it as such. When you eventually get enroute or RNAV on your licence, make sure you learn how to reference the tracking information and it will all become clear. :ok:

Cheers

[ZEEBEE]

Without going too much deeper into this, the simple answer is no. Depends on your the TSO of your RNAV, database currency and whole bunch of other things.




Nah, Sorry that won't wash:hmm:

Firstly, if you don't have an approved GPS with all the things quoted above, you can't even LEGALLY use it to determine track, especially in IMC (though most everybody does) , so I reiterrate, if you've got a legal GPS and an approach is tabled, then you would use it over an NDB everytime.
If you don't, then you're stuck with the non-precision approach with all of the caveats that apply and one of them is that you can only TRACK accurately when referenced to an aid.

With regard to the use of GNSS/RNAV for tracking, I'm going to assume you haven't had much experience using them and leave it as such. When you eventually get enroute or RNAV on your licence, make sure you learn how to reference the tracking information and it will all become clear.

Making assumptions is what this thread is ultimately about and I'm afraid you've made another wrong one there too.
Having designed navigation instruments using GPS from it's inception in 1986 to now, I would probably class myself as being familiar with the tracking capabilities of GPS receivers (even modern ones,no less). :=

[Tankengine]

Zeebee,

Mate, you are overcomplicating things,

Sometimes TRACK = TRACK, thats all, no HDG, no TO/FROM waypoint, no reference, just TRACK!!!!!!!

ie: @ 500' turn right TRACK 050 , intercept 030 radial

here you are not tracking to/from anywhere except where you were @ 500' :ugh:

[Dragun]

*sigh*

I give up. :ugh:

Have a nice weekend all!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

you cannot maintain a track unless it has a reference way point that aint gonna work when we arn't to intercept a bearing etc....

Absolute DRIVEL!

Forget all ya NDBs, VORs and GPSs and go back to Basic Nav 101.

Pull out ya wiz wheel (I don't even carry one for show any more!) and do some basic nav exercises.

Wind: XXX/YY
Desired TRACK: AAA
Heading: BBB
TRACK made good: CCC (which may or may not equal AAA and should equal BBB in nil wind)

Heading is what is on ya compass or DG
Track is the imaginary snail trail ya leave over the ground


Dr :}

[Capt Wally]

'tankengine' well explained in simple terms:D

Track you make good to achieve with known winds, unknown winds you just head as per the suggested track. Like I said & others the Appr's have been surveyed out to the moon & back to allow for human error, of which there is plenty os stories & therories being exhibited here!:bored:


CW

[ZEEBEE]

The few dozen NDB missed approaches I've done (most in training or renewals) I've always taken up a heading that ought to have resulted in a reasonable track from the wind as determined during the approach, and no instructor/examiner ever criticized me for it.

Hey, you guys ought to chill out!

Above is the excerpt from my one of my first posts in this thread where I do just what most everybody does. :ugh: Note the words "ought to" though.

Without a ground reference though, expected tracks aren't necessarily what you think they are and though it's not quite what we're on about, the poor fellow who thought he was maintaining the published track near Wangaratta a couple of years ago, would probably not come to grief if he was tracking to or from an aid. :{

[OzExpat]

Methinks the originator of this topic is a champion stirrer. We've all be sucked in on a hiding to nothing. If this isn't a correct assumption, I pity all the poor, innocent pax that entrust their lives to his/her care.

[Jabawocky]

You may be right Ozex

I cannot believe this thread is still running.

Some threads are just plain funny and ongoing...... this is sad!:uhoh:

J:sad:

[Tee Emm]

I don't know about now, but in 1969 during my time with DCA in Melbourne as an Airways Surveyor, the IAL chart designer told us that headings were used in most missed approach procedures (rather than headings to make good a track) because it was convential wisdom at the time that the pilot was busy enough and stressed enough ( assuming it was a weather related missed approach and not merely simulated instrument flight), that a heading was far better than worrying about drift angles. Thus the published headings in pertinent IAL charts already had a terrain safety tolerance as part of the design.

[ZEEBEE]

I don't know about now, but in 1969 during my time with DCA in Melbourne as an Airways Surveyor, the IAL chart designer told us that headings were used in most missed approach procedures (rather than headings to make good a track) because it was convential wisdom at the time that the pilot was busy enough and stressed enough ( assuming it was a weather related missed approach and not merely simulated instrument flight), that a heading was far better than worrying about drift angles. Thus the published headings in pertinent IAL charts already had a terrain safety tolerance as part of the design.

Here we go again!

I agree with the the sentiment, but the wording does say "Track"

OZExpat as a keeper of the IAP morals, it's over to you..

[xxgoldxx]

Dragun I feel your pain...

The number of IFR pilots that can not grasp TRK and BRG on a basic GPS..
all you need is those 2 numbers for a waypoint or just the 1 for track..

TRaK until the BeaRinG is what you want then make the 2 number match.. no drift calculations, no DG required, no displays, no needles, nuthin !! works everytime..

you would not of course use these for approaches etc !!

[ZEEBEE]

Dragun I feel your pain...

The number of IFR pilots that can not grasp TRK and BRG on a basic GPS..
all you need is those 2 numbers for a waypoint or just the 1 for track..

TRaK until the BeaRinG is what you want then make the 2 number match.. no drift calculations, no DG required, no displays, no needles, nuthin !! works everytime..

you would not of course use these for approaches etc !!



You don't get it, do you? :ugh:

Tracking with the aid of a GPS is so simple that if you can read, you can do it!
Everyone knows that!

The NDB and VOR instrument approaches assume you don't have one, as they must BY LEGISLATION.

Even if you have one, legally in IFR you're not allowed to use it. Having said that, I would in a heartbeat, but in theory (not in practise, more and more) examiners will fail you if you DO use it. Even though the same examiner will use the GPS to determine your TRACKING accuracy throughout the approach.

So, you're left with estimating the drift correction OR taking up a heading and hoping that the Approach designer got it right when he/she put in sufficient slop for likely wind componens.

[xxgoldxx]

You don't get it, do you? :ugh:

Tracking with the aid of a GPS is so simple that if you can read, you can do it!
Everyone knows that!



... Ahh yep!.. my point excactly...

Seems not everyone can though !!
My comments do not relate to using GPS (or not) in relation to the Missed approach....

[Capt Wally]

.............as an add-on to this subject 'cause it's going nowhere anyway (& i'll get canned for saying that no doubt ) lets say after that missed appr as above (4get all the tracking BS for now) you contact ATC advise them that you are returning to SYD & request an airways clearance 'cause yr heading say back to SYD vis BIK (as planned). Obvioulsy by now ATC are aware of what yr intending to do by way of asking & go away for a minute or so to arrange that clearance after being told there is no IFR traffic. Yr now say 2o nms from ye Dep AD. Scenario is yr in cloud & now awaiting a clearance. It's been quite on the radio for longer than you would expect, oh damn you have had a total radio failure (comms only) so you squawk code 7600 (radio failure) now here's the Q....do you enter cta (remembering that you where NOT issued a clearance) at yr planned lvl & trk yr planned route & do yr fight to within 25nms of SYD then track as req to the most suitable App procedure then land off the App watching for tower light signals & txmiting blind the whole time or do you return to the Dep AD & make an APP with no radio again xtmitting blind remaining OCTA?
The regs in the EMERG section are a littel grey I reckon, (no doubt someone will say there not that's fine) just wanted to know what you guys out would actually do regardless of the regs. Now I know it's hard to make a decison based on the above due so many variables but lets see some answers anyway. I wonder how long b4 this becomes a blood bath or I get shot down by the nazi Mods?:bored:


CW

[capt787]

of course you can use your GPS for distance and tracking info in IFR. all you need is pass a GPS ground course and have the GPS receiver type endorsement on your logbook. in fact, if you have an IFR-approved GPS(GNSS) you must use it.

AIP ENR 1.1 19.4.3 When using radio navigation aids as the primary means of navigation
the aircraft must be navigated by reference to the aid which
provides the most precise track guidance with which the aircraft is
equipped and the pilot is qualified to use.
The order of precision is Localiser, GNSS, VOR, then NDB/Locator.

[ZEEBEE]

of course you can use your GPS for distance and tracking info in IFR. all you need is pass a GPS ground course and have the GPS receiver type endorsement on your logbook. in fact, if you have an IFR-approved GPS(GNSS) you must use it.

Cap'ns, 787 first. The discussion centres about what you do following a missed app if you DON'T have a GPS (by necessity, it needs to be approved) and need to do a non-precision approach.

If you've done the ground course, got the instrument and the GPS approach is promulgated you must, as you point out use the most precise aid.

Then there is no issue re track vs heading.

Wally. The answer to your question is the same as when I posed a similar one during my IF training twenty years ago....

Answer....It depends

[Two_dogs]

Wally,

I would get out my trusty mobile phone and talk to centre or approach. I have done it before, and they are most accommodating. I was once cleared to land from about 45 miles out. It was a Sunday, and pretty quiet I guess. (I don't know, my radios were very quiet after an alternator failure about two hours earlier)

Two Dogs

[Capt Wally]

yes two_dogs that's what most would do am sure if they had a Mob Ph that worked, but I did say there are a lot of variables and there would be a number of ways to perhaps get around this scenario.

'zeebee' yr dead right, "it depends", depends on what an individual would do on the day.


CW

[ZEEBEE]

I would get out my trusty mobile phone and talk to centre or approach. I have done it before, and they are most accommodating. I was once cleared to land from about 45 miles out. It was a Sunday, and pretty quiet I guess. (I don't know, my radios were very quiet after an alternator failure about two hours earlier)

Two dogs,
I suspect that you would have had a few more problems than Cap'n Wally alluded to, insofar as your nav instruments would have been either failed or worse still unreliable.

Getting vectored down while trying to listen to a mobile phone in a cockpit environment wouldn't be my idea of fun. Also, the poor controller on the other end wouldn't be enjoying his day either.
Finally, you would soon be losing your backup attitude indicator.

Not for this Duck of colour! (not allowed to say Black duck anymore)

[Capt Wally]

'zeebee' you can say 'black' all ya like mate 'cause it's not actually a colour!:) Black is the absence of colour:)


CW

[GUARD]

Oxi,

Do us all a favour and shoot over to Perth and go flying with your new mate zeebee. From what you've both written here WE MAY NEVER SEE EITHER OF YOU AGAIN.

How hard do you two want to make it?!

You should know what the wind has been doing to you throughout the entire approach. You get to the missed approach point - no contact and off you go on your quickly computed heading you've been thinking about on the way down so as to make good the prescribed track.

So if its WOL and it says track 080 and the wind is a southerly at 20kts then a heading of 090 from the missed approach point should keep you out of trouble.

Gods Gift and others told you this AGES AGO.

You really need a refresher mate. SOON!

GUARD:ok:

[ZEEBEE]

'zeebee' you can say 'black' all ya like mate 'cause it's not actually a colour! Black is the absence of colour

Thanks Wally :ok:, but tell that to the thought police :rolleyes:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The regs in the EMERG section are a littel grey I reckon, (no doubt someone will say there not that's fine) just wanted to know what you guys out would actually do regardless of the regs. Now I know it's hard to make a decison based on the above due so many variables but lets see some answers anyway

A minor inconvenience only Wally! I have double and triple redundancy on everything but the big noise up front.

I would pull out the VHF hand-held from its spot in the pocket behind the pilot's seat - and keep on trucking. If no joy with that, I would ring Briefing on the mobile (which I have interfaced through my DCs) and have them get Approach to ring me back (like Two Dogs, I have done this before) - its not a big deal.

I suspect that you would have had a few more problems than Cap'n Wally alluded to, insofar as your nav instruments would have been either failed or worse still unreliable

That's why ya have a Garmin 296/396/496 or 596 on the yolk - good enough to fly an Appr with if you are really stuck!

Getting vectored down while trying to listen to a mobile phone in a cockpit environment wouldn't be my idea of fun. Also, the poor controller on the other end wouldn't be enjoying his day either

Why so? Don't ya think that ATC would task someone just to look after you? In the cockpit it is no different to talking on the radio!

Finally, you would soon be losing your backup attitude indicator.

.... and why would this be a problem, ya primary flight instruments would be working fine, assuming they are vacumm/pressure driven!

The only big deal is when they ask "do you wish to declare an emergency" and you reply "not at this time", only to find on arrival that the emergency services are waiting for ya!

Dr :}

PS: "Non-reflective" is the new black!

[ZEEBEE]

Oxi,

Do us all a favour and shoot over to Perth and go flying with your new mate zeebee. From what you've both written here WE MAY NEVER SEE EITHER OF YOU AGAIN.

How hard do you two want to make it?!

G'day Guard

Read my original reply, to wit;

The few dozen NDB missed approaches I've done (most in training or renewals) I've always taken up a heading that ought to have resulted in a reasonable track from the wind as determined during the approach, and no instructor/examiner ever criticized me for it.

That's what most including this Duck of Colour does, okay?

The rest is academic and has served this post well (except when individuals get emotional). You free to read and participate or not as you wish. No coercion is implied.

Finally, when you've done in excess of twenty renewals, then I'll allow you to lecture me on procedures.

[ZEEBEE]

Why so? Don't ya think that ATC would task someone just to look after you? In the cockpit it is no different to talking on the radio!

..

Well FDTk, not everybody has a mobile linked into their intercomm system, and even if you did, your comms failure might well have taken that out too.

If you have to talk into the handset, then you've got to try to hear the guy (not all that flash on a mobile phone) and worse still, he's going to be entertained by the dulcit tones of a IO520 cranking out 125 or more Db's.
I've been on the receiving end of that and it ain't pleasant.

Finally, you would soon be losing your backup attitude indicator.

.... and why would this be a problem, ya primary flight instruments would be working fine, assuming they are vacumm/pressure driven!

Okay, Okay I had a brain fade...
Even though the PAI is working and is a vacuum driven device, I've had too many failures of vac pumps to have ANY faith in them.
The Islander I flew, used to blow both of them simultaneously whenever you put the autopilot on.
I've always felt more comfortable knowing I've got an electrical attitude indicator as a backup.

[Capt Wally]

'FTDK' yr correct in all you say mate but you are NOT a good Eg.:) You have too many 'toy's far more than 'joe average' even a twin turbo prop would be lacking in what stuff you have slowing down the 'old Bo:ok:
I was refering to us plebs out there that only have 2X vhf's, 1X HF & maybe 1X Mob phone, not 10X of each buddy as in yr case!:E
Yr right 'zeebee' the thought police will get us:bored: But like they say, "all cats are black, in the dark" !:ok:

CW:)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Well FDTk, not everybody has a mobile linked into their intercomm system, and even if you did, your comms failure might well have taken that out too. If you have to talk into the handset, then you've got to try to hear the guy (not all that flash on a mobile phone) and worse still, he's going to be entertained by the dulcit tones of a IO520 cranking out 125 or more Db's. I've been on the receiving end of that and it ain't pleasant.

Zeebee, I gotta disagree with you on this. I have participated in a number of teleconferences while airborne in the Bonza, with just a standard mobile phone earpiece in my ear under the ANC DCs. Not a problem!

I would have thought any pilot these days would carry a mobile phone and earpiece - for just such a circumstance.

Wally, jokes about my "toys" have gotten in the way of reality! For the record, the FTDK has 2 x VHF and one TSO129 Garmin 430 GPS (soon to be TSO146a) in the panel.

Being SE it also has, by choice, an electric stdby AH.

I think any pilot flying steam driven avionics equipped aircraft should save their pennies and buy a Garmin 296/396/496/596 to sit on the dash or the yolk - cause it may well save you hide one day.

Yeah, and I also have a portable VHF (many pilots do).

I don't have HF, but I do carry a sat phone cause I operate in a lot of remote places and carry such for safety purposes.

Dr :}

[ZEEBEE]

Zeebee, I gotta disagree with you on this. I have participated in a number of teleconferences while airborne in the Bonza, with just a standard mobile phone earpiece in my ear under the ANC DCs. Not a problem!

I would have thought any pilot these days would carry a mobile phone and earpiece - for just such a circumstance.

Orright, you've got me there:ok:

Clutches at straws
How about it's illegal to use your mobile phone when flying:(

Don't bother answering that one.

Anyway, I don't think that, that was what Wally was getting at when he hijacked the thread.

[Capt Wally]

hey 'zeebee' don't say the word "hijacked' the Mods will think they have a 'friend':E Besides I didn't hijack it as such just added to it (besides it's all aviation related) & from there on it's snowballed to where it is now, I didn't make you lot post here, yr big enough boys to know better:)
Ah come on Dr:8 I use you as an EG as to what most have NOT got onboard a std pvt plane. As far as the SE goes well that's yr choice buddy:ok: A Sat. Ph hey? why am I not surprised.:ok:

CW

[ZEEBEE]

hey 'zeebee' don't say the word "hijacked' the Mods will think they have a 'friend' Besides I didn't hijack it as such just added to it (besides it's all aviation related) & from there on it's snowballed to where it is now, I didn't make you lot post here, yr big enough boys to know better

Wally,
The mods don't have any friends:suspect:

let's just call it a sympathetic diversion :cool:

FTDK A satphone no less:sad:

Don't you wish for the days when you just had a map and a compass:E

[GUARD]

ZEEBEE,

Fair cop on the content of your original post. I read this whole thing in one sitting and guess I dragged you into my ' attack ' by some form of association with old mate Oxi who said he agreed with you and then changed the content of your words.

However, I have 13 renewals and that won't matter a toss if I either stuff something up or never knew it in the first place. I wouldn't presume to lecture you but not because you have 20 renewals but rather its not my place to and I don't even know you. Big call though on your behalf to say that nobody has the right to correct you based on the number of renewals you have.

GUARD:ok:

[ZEEBEE]

Guard

I appreciate your response and I guess the thread has dragged on a bit.
That's the problem isn't it, it's easy to miss an important point if you have to trawl through a bunch of guff.
However, these are open forums and nobody has it right all the time.
Criticism is the great leveller as long as it is kept impersonal, I'm as open to it as anyone. (Except maybe FTDK):E

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Criticism is the great leveller as long as it is kept impersonal, I'm as open to it as anyone. (Except maybe FTDK):E

Geez, Zeebee! That's a bit unfair.

I'll have you know it has taken me 23 renewals to achieve perfection!

Dr :}

[OzExpat]

I don't know about now, but in 1969 during my time with DCA in Melbourne as an Airways Surveyor, the IAL chart designer told us that headings were used in most missed approach procedures (rather than headings to make good a track) because it was convential wisdom at the time that the pilot was busy enough and stressed enough ( assuming it was a weather related missed approach and not merely simulated instrument flight), that a heading was far better than worrying about drift angles. Thus the published headings in pertinent IAL charts already had a terrain safety tolerance as part of the design.
Yes, that was the fact in those days but it assumed an area of benign terrain and that the time used in the missed approach was comparitively short. Thus, the residual risk was considered to be minimal. It was also the case that the protection areas were more conservative in those times and this would also have helped to keep the aircraft fairly safe.

It did, however, result in minimum altitudes that were quite high, because of all the obstacles that were encompassed by the broad protection areas.

Pans Ops has undergone many changes since then, with protection areas being reduced and refined. I can only guess that this meant there was less protection for the missed approach segment and this, in turn, may have led to the requirement for making good some sort of track. I don't know for sure about that because I didn't start designing procedures until 1984, at the tail-end of the then old Pans Ops criteria from 1977.

I don't know if any of the "old-timers" in procedure design are still around, to give us any better idea but, pending comments from them, my guess is probably as good as anyone elses. :uhoh:

[oxi]

OzExpat thanks for that, this is basicaly what i'm trying to get across that in the case a Heading is refered to automaticaly we are straight onto it no questions asked. (A broard range of protection is accounted for).

If track is refered to its a case of work to establish yourself outbound on whatever that may be. (Perhaps in the event of obstacles, or a lower MDA).

I think the key is the words alone, why some guys are intent to prattle on about definitions blows me away (and reference to the GPS). Yes the true meaning is a Heading adjusted to maintain a Track but in the efforts of trying to keep it simple for missed approach directions i feel it would be a better method of getting it across.

I think its a much simpler approach to the wording as we can all see this has prompted a whole a huge amount of conversation from a wide variety of pilots but not with any obvious outcome in my opinion.

[TinKicker]

Ok Guys,

here it is direct from the source document.....

ICAO Doc 8168 OPS/611 - Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS-OPS) Volume 1 - Flight Procedures - Chapter 1 General Information

"1.1.3 All procedures depict tracks. Pilots should attempt to maintain the track by applying corrections to heading for known wind." p. I-2-1-1 dated 23/11/2006


Over....and out


Tinkicker

[ZEEBEE]

ICAO Doc 8168 OPS/611 - Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS-OPS) Volume 1 - Flight Procedures - Chapter 1 General Information

"1.1.3 All procedures depict tracks. Pilots should attempt to maintain the track by applying corrections to heading for known wind." p. I-2-1-1 dated 23/11/2006

Says it all doesn't it :ok:

Nice to see the actual reference. I guess if it had turned up sooner, it would have been put to bed.

I suspect Oxi, that this thread has expired, but not without some interesting revelations.

[insertnamehere]

was that the world's biggest wind-up? (so to speak)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Good onya Tinkicker!

62 posts later, ya confirmed what me old mate BC wrote in the 4th post!

Dr :8

[NAMPS]

This thread is hilarious!

[TinKicker]

Hi FTDK,

I would have jumped in much sooner but I have been on the road and away from the documents.......surely you must have had some amusement reading the replies to what should have been an easy answer....like you say BC got it right inside 5 posts!!!

Tinkicker

[ZEEBEE]

I thought this thread should have died ages ago, but since everyone seems to resuscitate it, who am I to argue?

Yes BC got it right early in the post, as have others, BUT it was tinkicker who provided the definitive reference.

Til then it was mostly a matter of opinion.

ya gotta have the reference!

[obie2]

So, now that you've all decided that you will follow a Track after a missed approach and not a Heading...

what are you going to base your Track on?

Correct answer goes to the top of the class! :ok:

[amos2]

Nobody seems to want to answer, so I will...

From the MAP! :D

QED

[kalavo]

Pan ops already told us - applying corrections for known wind.

[amos2]

So why didn't you answer the question then? :=