switch to the parallel rwy

[poldek77]

Having read the the eighth edition of HindSight magazine (http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/565.pdf (mhtml:{A1C42907-0C2A-417C-81B9-D31BF5BA280D}mid://00000065/!x-usc:http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/565.pdf)) and the article "A close encounter of a most unwelcome kind" (page 27), I feel disoriented in "switch to the parallel rwy" procedure. It sometimes happened to me in e.g. Frankfurt EDDF or Milano LIMC, when TWR asked if we accepted the other runway for landing. We used to be visual and it was no problem, but I'd like to know what status we are at such situation. Circle-to-land? Not sure, as in FRA no such minimums published. Visual approach? Other?
My concerns are about missed approach. In the incident described by HindSight it is quite obvious as they were recleared for another ILS and missed approach to be followed also changed. But what go-around should we follow when been switched at 2000' AGL? Are there any regulations for this?
Thanks for your comments.

[Henry VIII]

what status we are at such situationSuch a request are usually asked whith nice wx, expecting acft in VMC and ground contact.
Instinctively say visual approach.
what go-around should we follow when been switched at 2000' AGL?Always the GA of the landing runway.

[herbert23]

I allways thought that we should fly the missed approach for the landing rwy too after a swing over.
Last year we had a controller visiting us in the flightdeck and he told us that if not instructed otherwise ATC expects us to fly the missed approach for the initial rwy.
In FRA they will give you instructions which missed approach to follow in case of after the swing just to avoid possible confusion.

[poldek77]

So we have: "Always the GA of the landing runway." vs. "ATC expects us to fly the missed approach for the initial rwy."
Sorry, but it doesn't help.

[parabellum]

I have often been asked to 'side-step' in the USA. Most often at LAX, lined up for 24R and asked to side step to 24L. Had I required to do a GA from 24L at the same time as an aircraft required to do a GA on 24R and had I followed 24R procedure then things could have got very messy.

I know this one has been here before but it wouldn't hurt for it to be examined again.

[dixi188]

Standard ops. " If in doubt, Ask"

ie. Twr: Can you accept switch to 25L.

Pilot: Affirm! In the event of a miss, what procedure do we follow?

This should cover it.

[Intruder]

Are you still flying an instrument approach? If so, which one?

From 2000' you can be re-cleared for an ILS to a different runway; have done it many times at LAX. In that case, you would fly the missed approach procedure for the new approach.

Were you cleared for the approach to the Right, sidestep or circle to land on the Left? If so, the missed approach procedure for the original approach is still applicable until you are cleared for something else.

Were you cleared for a visual approach to the parallel? If so, neither missed approach procedure applies. If you go around, do it straight over the landing runway until tower gives you other instructions.

If you didn't get one of those clearances, you should clarify with the controller.

[poldek77]

Indeed - it was already discussed and I missed that. But still no clear idea about the subject... :ugh:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/299024-swing-over-missed-approach.html

[Rainboe]

Using common sense, you may have been switched over to the other runway to allow a departure. So there you are, in a go-around from your new runway, and you elect to fly the go around for the runway you were on the original approach for! So you turn to fly OVER the runway someone is now taking off from? Not good!

This is where practical common sense must rule the solution, not some suit in an office deciding what the rule book should say. As far as I am concerned, you are now on a new approach. On some types, in order to get the new ILS displayed, you must change the landing runway in the FMS to display. This will also automatically load the new runway go-around procedure. So to auto go-around, you will be flying the new go-around.

If you are given a new runway, where does the point end where you are supposed to fly the original go-around and change to the new one then? Going into one Amsterdam runway, then switched over 20 miles out, is anyone seriously suggesting flying the original go-around? No! So when is it supposed to change?

[kijangnim]

Greetings,
If ATC ask you to switch runway, they have to provide you with the Go Around procedure to follow since you are at this stage considered doing a visual approach.:ok:
After landing you will have IRS excess drift if you did not change the runway on the FMS :}

[hetfield]

After landing you will have IRS excess drift if you did not change the runway on the FMSNo, the IRS will not drift therefore, but your artificial FMS position will be wrong.

[Nick 1]

A couple of time has been requested in IFR , in order to fly the change of rwy visually i think you must have circling minima for the new one.

Nick 1

[kijangnim]

Greetings, :ouch:
This is correct, the IRS will be Ok, however the FMS will compute a drift, because it assumes you have landed on the FMS selected runway, and will work out the difference with your actual position :ok:

[mwaugh]

In the US I have only ever been asked to switch runways inside the marker after ATC has received assurance from us we have the runway in site and then they clear us for a visual.
Other runway switches are always outside the marker (often well outside) and we get cleared for the approach to the runway we're landing on and with that goes the corresponding missed.
In my opinion if you're switching runways and unclear if you're visual or shooting the instrument approach you've got bigger problems than what missed to fly, although that's certainly A problem.

[mr. small fry]

I don't know the answer to this specific question, however the statement that the actual "landing runway" determines the missed approach procedure is in conflict with the standard procedures adopted for circling approaches. In the latter case the missed approach should be flown in line with the procedures of the runway used for the approach.

I'll bet that, in the case of this thread, we are not doing a "straight in" approach, and therefore I can only deduce that we must be "circling" - although clearly not in the full sense.

Notwithstanding that, Rainboe's observation should not be overlooked, and in any case I would certainly not hesitate to clarify the situation with ATC if I agreed with their request. If I chose not to agree to the switch of runway, I would of course be correct to fly the published miss for the runway I had just approached!

[Rainboe]

I don't think that the Circling Approach criteria necessarily apply. It is normally assumed you are flying an approach to one runway to land on another, invariably at a different alignment. The case here is simply jinking slightly to complete a visual landing on a parallel runway. The mind boggles where you can have 4 parallel runways, and you insist on being a plonker and fly the missed approach for the runway 3 away from the one you are actually landing on! LAX would be talking about it for years! The ATC Tower would all be taking early retirement! Time to let common sense rule!

It should be noted on those types where FMS-entered landing runway tunes in the appropriate ILS, then unless this is changed, you are likely to get some bizarre ILS indications and warnings by not landing on that runway. This would lead to flight recorder events that would have to be explained.