LTAI Missed approach procedure

[Mashuk]

Hi everyone. I could get your opinion.
Here is LTAI charts.
http://va-uralairlines.ru/charts/LTAI.pdf
Look at 11-5, please - Missed approach procedure.
Question:
Should we maintain 1250 feet executing missed approach procedure until 5NM DME OR we MAY climb to 2700 feet (final missed approach altitude)?

On my personal opinion we have to maintain 1250 feet until passing 5NM DME on R-330 and after that (5NM DME) we have to climb 2700 feet.

The missed approach procedure does not make it clear for everybody in my company.

Many thanks!

[Field In Sight]

It seems clear to me the way I read it.
Climb to 2700ft.

You must be at least 5d and (1250ft or above) before the left turn.


Nothing on the plate indicates a stepped climb. I wouldn't particularly like to maintain 1250ft whilst flying towards hills.

[Eric Janson]

You climb to 2700 as per the missed approach.

1250 or 5DME is the turning point back to the VOR.

Maintaining 1250 heading towards terrain will get you into trouble.

[Mashuk]

How to make sure thet there is no any reson for steped climb?
Just word "maintain"?
I missed that with "to 1250 feet". "TO" mean until/till "edge".
"Climb TO 1250 feet"
How to not missed "open climb" in other chart?

[Mashuk]

1250 or 5DME is the turning point back to the VOR.
-------------------------------------------------------------
So we may turn inbound VOR before 5NM?

[Luc Lion]

The missed approach procedure for "ELLX IAC.02 ILS or LLZ RWY 24" is described as :
Missed Approach IAS 250 kt MAX
Climb to 3000 ft to WLU
Turn right to DIK climbing to 4000 ft (2790)
ELLX IAC.02 ILS or LLZ RWY 24 (http://www.belgocontrol.be/website/eaip/eAIP_Main/graphics/Ad/Ellx/ELLX_IAC02_v10.pdf)

And trust me, if you bust the 3000 ft limit before the turn point and without a specific clearance, you will get some acrid comments from the control.
If the procedure is divided in 2 legs with a climb limit assigned to each leg, you have to wait for the second leg starting point before continuing the climb.

Luc

[The Range]

You cannot turn left before reaching 1250ft nor before 5.0 DME. If you reach
1250ft before 5.0 DME you keep climbing to 2700ft. At 5.0 DME you start your
left turn. If you reach 1250ft after 5DME you turn left when you reach 1250ft
and keep climbing to 2700ft.

[FlightPathOBN]

wait a second...

It says climb to 1250 on AYT

THEN turn left after 5 DME AYT

climbing to 2700. That seems to say that depending on where you go missed, you level to 1250 until you reach 5DME, then turn/climb to 2700...

ie If you went missed at 2nm, (or before)and climbed right to 2700, wouldnt you would conflict with the approach/hold at 3000?

[The Range]

OBN

I guess you're right

[Mashuk]

I think description should be revised.

[Mashuk]

Also, ILS DME-1 approach but FAF marked from VOR DME and no any ILS DME distanse.
Switching to raw data during approach will make impossible to check false GS interception.

[Fullblast]

Guys, the missed approach procedure is not designed for commercial airlines but for every kind of aircraft, even a c150 full load on a 40° celsius day.
You follow the radial climbing to 2700 and turn at 5 dme, but, if for any reason (emergency), you don't have 1250' by 5 dme you keep following the radial until 1250' then turn to vor; this is the meaning of the procedure; it may sound as bad wording, but actually is correct because fits all the possible situation.
By the way, do some math and will see that the distance from the MAP to the 5 dme point at 1250 baro is more or less 2,5% climb.

FB

[Contacttower]

Although it reads as though you only climb above 1250ft after 5 DME it seems unlikely that it means that if there is 755ft spot height just next to the turn point.

[FlightPathOBN]

I am not familiar with that aerodrome, but looking at all of the procedures, approach, hold, and departures, this is just like many other airports and procedures, when you go missed, depending on where you go missed, you still fly down to the MDA,or in this case 1250, level, and follow the missed track.

Virtually no where, when you go missed, can you just climb to the hold alt. This conflicts with all of the procedures that hold over, and/or cross the runways.

As stated before, at this particular airport, if you went missed at 2nm, and climbed to 2700, you would be in direct conflict with the hold, the approach, as well as many of the departure procedures.

[Capn Bloggs]

when you go missed, depending on where you go missed, you still fly down to the MDA,or in this case 1250, level, and follow the missed track.
So what do you do if you get out of tracking tolerance before the Missed Approach point? Just keep going down to the MDA and hit the obstacle off to the side? Don't be ridiculous. Climb immediately and follow the MA path. ATC should already have thought of that. If OCTA, organise separation with the other aircraft before you start the approach. In this case, tell him to hold not below 3700ft.

[FlightPathOBN]

they did, they told you to climb to 1250....if you decide to go missed at 2000, wouldnt you stay on track, go to 1250 and follow missed track, when you get to 5DME on that track, turn and climb to 2700...

virtually every missed approach works the same way, in every Country.
You are on approach, decide to go missed, you stay on track and go to the MDA level unless it tells you different...
If you just decide to climb to hold whenever you go missed, you will conflict with the procedures to cross the airport....

[FerrypilotDK]

The procedure as worded definitely restricts the climb on r330 to 1250 with no turn until 5nm, then a left turn and further climb.

1250 or 5DME is the turning point back to the VOR

That is not correct, as the procedure specifically calls for no turn before 5nm.

Same at KTEB, climbing too soon brings you right into arrival traffic at La Guardia. Why the limit here? Don't know.... But it is there.....

I certainly agree that 500 feet of clearance at 5 nm is not exactly comfortable....

[FerrypilotDK]

Also, ILS DME-1 approach but FAF marked from VOR DME and no any ILS DME distanse.
Switching to raw data during approach will make impossible to check false GS interception.

No... Just a bit more work. You will need to use DME hold on the VOR freq, then switch to the ILS freq for the LOC and GS...

If you have no GS, you will also need to do this, as missed is at 3 DME off the VOR, Not the LOC.

Looking at 11-8, if you have no DME, you turn earlier and climb to 2000, then turn left, climbing to 3000.

Looking at 11-9, and assuming parallel approaches are a possibility, you see why they are keeping you down and no turn before 5 DME. I will guarantee, that if you climb immediately to 2700 and turn after 1250 but before 5nm, you will have a lot of explaining to do.

[MarkerInbound]

virtually every missed approach works the same way, in every Country.
You are on approach, decide to go missed, you stay on track and go to the MDA level unless it tells you different...


I can list at least one large country where this is not true. From the FAA's Instrument Procedures Handbook:

"It is appropriate after passing the FAF, and recommened, where there aren't any climb restrictions, to begin a climb to the missed approach altitude without waiting to arrive at the MAP."

[Capn Bloggs]

You are on approach, decide to go missed, you stay on track and go to the MDA level unless it tells you different...

Nonsense! If you are out of tracking tolerance on the approach, you'd be a nutcase to proceed on down to the MDA then start climbing. Show me any AIP that says "in the event of a missed approach, continue descent to the MDA then commence the missed approach climb".

If you just decide to climb to hold whenever you go missed, you will conflict with the procedures to cross the airport....
How strange that virtually all the SIDs at this airport have a requirement to be over the airport at or above 4000ft...

Same at KTEB, climbing too soon brings you right into arrival traffic at La Guardia. Why the limit here? Don't know.... But it is there.....
If that were the case, then altitude limits would be put on the approach chart. How is "don't climb too soon" decribed on the KTEB aapproach chart? Or maybe ATC might say "in the event of a missed approach climb to XXXXft..." (being an altitude that would provide separation).

Back to this approach, I can see the confusion but it does not say "climb to 1250ft. At 5DME turn left, track to the VOR. When tracking to the VOR, climb to 2700ft." If it did, then you guys may have a case. It doesn't, and if that was what was intended, they'd better re-word it.

[vilas]

FlightPathOBN
I think you are mistaking MAP with MDA. Missed approach has vertical and lateral part.You can execute missed approach at any altitude and you do not have to go to MDA but you have to go to MAP before you follow lateral part of missed approach procedure. If you cannot resume immediate climb the procedure will be meaningless. In this perticular procedure vertically you resume climb but laterally you have to go to the VOR and establish on the radial and only at 5DME and not before you turn left. The only altitude restriction is 2700 ft. If you are not 1250 ft at 5 DME then turn when passing 1250ft.

[HGVO]

In my opinion it is an initial climb to 1250' only.
Otherwise it would read 1250' or above at the turning point...

[Denti]

The LIDO description reads: direct AYT, R350 AYT, at 1250ft or D5 AYT, whichever is later, left turn to AYT - TOPUZ climb 2700'. Seems somewhat more clear to me.

[Capn Bloggs]

The LIDO description reads: direct AYT, R350 AYT, at 1250ft or D5 AYT, whichever is later, left turn to AYT
Not good wording either. That means (for example with an engine out and not able to make 1250ft by 5 DME), you'd keep going on the 330°R until you got to 1250ft.

[Fullblast]

That means (for example with an engine out and not able to make 1250ft by 5 DME), you'd keep going on the 330°R until you got to 1250ft.

That's correct, that's what you're supposed to do.
Denti's post amplifies what I already said few posts before.

FB

[Cough]

Capn Bloggs...

1250' is only 1100' above the runway elevation... or even 900' above the DA. Most jets at MLW rather than MTOW would be able to do that! (7nm to climb 900'...)

In the event of having an engine out and being unable to clear terrain using the published missed approach then I would expect your ops department to either publish an engine out missed approach procedure OR restrict the weight that you can land on this runway at.

[Capn Bloggs]

That's correct, that's what you're supposed to do.
The plan diagram indicates to turn at 5DME, not extend until you get to 1250ft.

Cough, fair enough. 1250ft looks to be about 2.5% at 5 DME.

[BOAC]

Interesting - the latest (7/3/2013) IAP for LTAI now has two ILS 36C, one (ILS/DME 2 36C) based on the AYT VOR has a g/a hold at TOPUZ at 2700' via the AYT with the same g/a wording as Mashuk's plate, while ILS 36C (based on the YT) has a different g/a (obviously no DME for the turn) via 2000' to a hold at the YT at 3. I think the AIP chart for this is mis-printed since it calls for a track on the YT 330 but is apparently drawn on the ILS LOC IAYT, and it certainly could be a bit of a scramble to get onto the YT 330!

I cannot see why, if no block at 1250' is required, the g/a does not say something like
"Climb to 2700' on the 330 AYT. At 5D AYT turn left etc...."?

As Cough says, if you cannot make 1250' in 7 miles you have other significant problems:)

[JeroenC]

I would agree on the contineous climb. This is typical Jeppesen wording for that, almost always confirmed by the FMC coding.

[BOAC]

This is typical Jeppesen wording for that, - actually Jepp are (more-or-less) just re-printing the Turkish AIP so I don't think that is fair comment!

[WhyByFlier]

It's a continuous climb - the reason for the 'do not turn before' is because if you turn at 1250 with two engines operative you'll probably end up joining the VOR much further south of the intended position. Denti's wording is spot on.

[sabenaboy]

Oops, deleted by me, misread the procedure in the LIDO chart.

[BOAC]

the reason for the 'do not turn before' - I think we can all understand that - the query was, I think, why mention 1250'?

[de facto]

I have no idea how to set 1250 on the MCP:E so I would climb to 2700 and turn at 5 DME.:E
If you are not sure,and worried about the traffic joining from the north at 3000 ft ,request clarification from ATC.
If you are too proud to ask over the radio,just go and see them,free coffee I reckon.:ok:

I was just looking at Kanak 2 A departure, 10-3M, and was wondering how the designers expect pilots to join a radial 160 deg off the apparent inbound track...

[BOAC]

I would set a missed approach of 1300 ft as the arrivals from the North eventhough feeding the VOR from different radials than the missed approach(R330),traffic may be overhead the VOR at 3000 ft,climbing to 2700 ft could be interesting.... - surely, since the g/a GOES to 2700' anyway at the holding area giving a potential 300' procedural separation, this proposition has little merit? The restriction on going 7 miles out to 5D takes care of initial conflictions, does it not? Why not just an unrestricted climb to 2700'?

EDIT: I see you have now deleted that part of your post?

[de facto]

Doop..i did,,,quick change of mind....:}

[BOAC]

:). Do you think my point is valid though?

"I was just looking at Kanak 2 A departure, 10-3M, and was wondering how the designers expect pilots to join a radial 160 deg off the apparent inbound track... " - I reckon 6g would crack it......:)

[de facto]

Yes valid point once at 2700 ft in the holding area,being 300ft below another traffic could be an interesting sight and in that particular case id rather be on top:E

Reedited again..:8(rose wine....)

[FullWings]

I don't think the wording is incredibly strange:

Climb on R-330 AYT to 1250'

means stay on the AYT 330 radial until getting to at least 1250' and

then turn LEFT (not before D5.0 AYT) climbing to 2700' proceed to VOR then TOPUZ and hold.

means don't start the left turn until 5D AYT and climb to 2700'.

There are two qualifiers for the left turn: above 1250' AND beyond 5D. 2700' is the "block" altitude as it specifies: climbing to 2700'

I've had a look at some non-Jepp charts and they have 1250' as a condition, not a stop height. Also, you've got to inject some common sense - would *you* level off at 1250' and head into the hills if you were doing this for real...?

[mushroom69]

You did notice that there are two holds, depending on which ILS you fly, and compare them to the missed for 36R. Someone talk to ATC at LTAI, and I am still convinced the altitude restriction....and it is clearly a restriction, is due to the parallel approaches in use.

It is a good discussion though. Let´s break for coffee.....

[de facto]

would *you* level off at 1250' and head into the hills if you were doing this for real...?

The hills are further than 5 miles no?:8

I vote for the OP to ask ATC and be done with it:ok:

[BOAC]

Full Wings - judging by the raft of opinion here I offer the thought that the wording is 'strange' enough?

Re the 1250', as Cough says, "would *you" expect to be still struggling for 1250' 7nm from g/a?

"would *you* level off at 1250' and head into the hills if you were doing this for real...?"- from your interpretation, yes, you would have at least 'wait' for 1250' (not 'level off'/'heading into the hills') regardless of position! Looking at the charts there is actually nothing to 'bother' you at 1250' well out, past 12nm.

[Cough]

Hmm,

I vote for the OP to ask ATC and be done with it

Methinks the OP would only be able to ask a virtual ATC unit... Certainly if the 'Airline' he works for is as linked in the original post!

[MaydayMaydayMayday]

Security issues at LTAI? Apparently not if you're a pink unicorn.

Schoolgirl, 9, passes through Turkish customs with toy passport identifying her as a UNICORN | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340135/Schoolgirl-9-passes-Turkish-customs-toy-passport-identifying-UNICORN.html)

Apologies if this is off topic, but it's at least mildly entertaining. (Even if it IS the DM, which probably means it's a load of bullocks. Still, at least they didn't blame it on immigrants...) ;)

[FullWings]

The hills are further than 5 miles no?

I haven't been there but it appears a 750'+ hill at 5 miles. The 4,000' MSA contour on the chart I've got starts at 9nm in the direction of the 330 radial.

There are several reasons why I think it is an unrestricted climb to 2,700': a) because the chart(s) effectively say that, b) you can't set 1250' for a go-around on your average airliner AFDS (MCP/FCU or whatever) and c) because it's much more sensible to do it that way.

LTAI is a place I go within range of on the way to/from the Middle and Far East so I might need to divert there one day. I've seen nothing in our documentation (Navtech) that precludes direct climbs to the final altitude on the missed approaches and that's the way I'd fly it if I had to do it tomorrow...

[Pub User]

I have to say, having read the Jeppesen plate several times, I can see nothing there that suggests levelling-off at 1250ft.

[BOAC]

The 4,000' MSA contour on the chart I've got starts at 9nm in the direction of the 330 radial. - better have a word with Navtech? Make that the 1000' contour at about 12nm?

[Zeffy]

:uhoh:

Please tell me that all IFR pilots understand the differences...


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/ELLXMAP_zps74137ef2.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/ELLXMAP_zps74137ef2.png.html)

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/SEAILS16L_zps35cafd08.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/SEAILS16L_zps35cafd08.png.html)


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/JFKILS31LMAP_zps50ac2239.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/JFKILS31LMAP_zps50ac2239.png.html)



http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/TEBMAP_zps9f79c7cc.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/TEBMAP_zps9f79c7cc.png.html)

[FullWings]

- better have a word with Navtech? Make that the 1000' contour at about 12nm?
I won't make excuses for them as they make as many mistakes as anyone else but there is a big difference, as you know, between an elevation contour (as depicted on Jep. chart 10-10) and an MSA envelope, which is what I'm looking at. Both can be correct and still give the information we've extracted...

[BOAC]

Missed the 'MSA', sorry! What use is this 4000' 'MSA' contour in a MSA sector of 10,000'?

[FullWings]

What use is this 4000' 'MSA' contour in a MSA sector of 10,000'?
Say you were coming in from an angle, or were cleared down by ATC, you could check your radial/distance and see whether it made sense, if there wasn't a published vectoring chart or to back it up if there was. Our quadrantal MSA (SSA) is determined by the highest obstacle in the "cheese", which may be up to 30 miles away and 90degs off course. Nice to have a map with this kind of thing on (which is the only good bit on the Navtech charts).

MSA for us = Minimum Safe Altitude, which gives approved vertical clearance within a specified area (envelope). Sector Safe Altitude (SSA) = quadrantal application of same.

[tommoutrie]

Gents, consider this

Two aircraft on approach, minimum separation. Both go missed. The first gets to 5D turns inbound. The second ignores the 1250 condition and blasts up to 2700.

They are now at the same level and pointing roughly at one another.

This is a bad thing.

[Cough]

Tom,

But that issue isn't just confined to this airfield.... Methinks ATC would rapidly change the plan.

[tommoutrie]

No, don't think so. Lets say both aircraft went around because of lost comms. The cause of the lost comms was ATC's doughnut maker exploded and their radio got fried. The aircraft that just lined up and was waiting to take off now just sits there. The first aircraft says "god dammit, can't land cos of plane on the runway and goes around". Second aircraft does the same - this is the reason that if he chooses to go missed from above the 1250 feet he should still continue down ton the 1250.

The 1250 is a definite condition. That's why it's on the immediate actions strip that everyone reads carefully three quarters of the way down the page. Then you do the missed approach instructions in order. 1250 feet. Then turn left. You must not turn left before 5D. Then climb.

It doesn't say "do all these things in any order you want"

Anyway, could be wrong, wa watching the ladies tennis and was a bit distracted.

[BOAC]

....and there will in any case be some lateral separation.

[tommoutrie]

The more likely thing is that in the event of a miss, ATC would modify the missed approach restriction if there was no conflicting traffic to climb you immediately to an appropriate hold level but the plate is trying to give a three dimensional corridor that protects us in all phases.

Anyway, not going to turkey, they have got riots and stuff going on there..

[tommoutrie]

BOAC

If you can't quantify the lateral separation, there isn't any. You have no idea at what point on the outbound and inbound legs the two aircraft will be so obviously the lateral separation can't be quantified. Also, what accuracy are you assuming the radial is being flown to? What radial is the aircraft returning to the VOR flying?

And here's a question for you. Lets say you are procedural. What is the required lateral separation? If you fly this plate as it is written you maintain separation. If you want continuous climb, request it. If you can't because the tower man was tipping back on his chair and fell over and banged his head, do what it says on the plate. It isn't ambiguous. Read the immediate action strip and read the briefing strip, in order, and do what it says.

I knew there was a reason teachers used to tell me not to tip back on my chair

[BOAC]

If you fly this plate as it is written you maintain separation. - so that makes you a vote for 'Stop at 1250 until 5D' then?

[tommoutrie]

Not a vote, this is not a democracy.

That is what you do, it is written on the plate.

How else is standard separation maintained?

What I would do is fly exactly what is on the plate and request continuous climb to whatever level ATC wanted me to hold at.

What would you do?

[FullWings]

I'd also do what was written on the plate, which a continuous climb to 2,700' but not turning until above 1250' AND 5DME outbound. If it were otherwise, it would be written in the manner of the examples Zeffy gave.

1250' at 5 miles in your average jet/turboprop looks like a GPWS warning as ground clearance reduces to around 500', which is one good reason not to be there.

Separation is a bit of a red herring here if you're talking about multiple failures. If it's just the radio on the ground, then we talk to each other in the air:

''where are you XXX? Antalya seems to have gone quiet.''
''I've just gone around, blocked runway, climbing to 2,700 then to the VOR'.''
''OK, I'll go back up to 4,000''...etc.

If someone in the air goes non-radio, then they follow the locally published procedure or do something generic if there isn't one. ATC can hold/vector other traffic while the non-communicating aircraft does its thing. There is TCAS to keep an eye on as well.

If everyone goes incommunicado at the same time, then you've got a problem. If their transponders are still working, then they're not going to hit each other but it'll take a little bit of application to get people in, probably waiting for each to land before starting the procedure. The guys at the top of the stack would probably go somewhere else.

''Standard separation'' is for when things are going, well, standardly. There are places all over the world, North America & Europe for example, where planes in 'free flight' will lose separation relatively rapidly without positive ATC. The prospect doesn't seem to cause high levels of anxiety and this is in airspace where there are relatively few defined levels...

[Denti]

I would do exactly what is said on the plate (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7xVk204frwQNGZ2dDJLVkhtMWM/edit?pli=1) of course, climbing to 2700 and turn at either 5D or 1250 whichever is later.

[tommoutrie]

Well I don't agree that's what the plate says but I don't think it matters that much either. The plate says climb to 1250 feet on the radial. It's in the immediate actions box. If it was continuous to 2700 it would say it there. The reason for the cap at 1250 is conflicting traffic as I've pointed out - you have the potential for reciprocal traffic with no meaningful separation. So what I would do is request the further climb and the net result would be the same. The plate is written to give a known profile and I don't agree that the climb is continuous unless you achieve 1250 feet at or after the 5D. I do agree that it's sensible to want to be higher at that point but you should obtain a clearance.

What would you do on plate 11-7? The missed approach is initially 2000 feet then a climbing left turn to 3000? Would you climb straight to 3000?

The plate is clear. This is not a continuous climb to 2700, and 11-7 is not continuous to 3000. If you want that you need to get a clearance to do it. If there is a feeling that the wording is ambiguous (and I don't think it is) then It needs reporting. But I don't understand why you think it's continuous when the immediate actions give you the initial platform. The onward climbing turn is clearly conditional on the 5D. Wouldn't you simply ask for the climb?

[tommoutrie]

Incidentally. Lets assume the single failure is a stuck mike in the control tower blocking out the tower frequency. And you're the number 2 traffic who is also going around because you don't have a clearance to land and there's a bloke on the runway. How would you fly the missed approach now? You know there's an aircraft who was in front of you by 6 miles, he has probably gone around, by the time you are establishing on the 330 radial climbing 2700 he's inbound the beacon at 2700, you can't chat about it because the megawatt transmitter has blocked the channel. That's a simple stuck mike, broken switch, duff transmitter, whatever, but certainly not a complex failure. What's the plan?

[Zeffy]

What would you do on plate 11-7? The missed approach is initially 2000 feet then a climbing left turn to 3000? Would you climb straight to 3000?

Did you intend to refer to plate 11-8?

[The Range]

If so many people here can't agree on this there must be something wrong with the wording.

[BOAC]

It certainly seems there is sufficient confusion here, and it is the wording that causes it. Is the intention to prevent anyone turning left until above 1250', and if so, why? There are no terrain reasons - OR is it as tom says, to provide separation? There should be no confusion. To all those who, like me have an idea of what is 'sensible', it is what is required by the chart constructors that matters, not personal 'interpretation'.

[tommoutrie]

ILS 36C is 11-7 on the current jepps I think. It bases a very similar go around on the YT 330 radial. I just wondered if the other chaps read that as a continuous climb too.

Interesting discussion chaps, very rare for prune..

[Zeffy]

Text from Missed Approach for the ILS 36C from your linked file:

MISSED APCH: Climb on 330-deg from NDB to 2000', then climbing LEFT turn to 3000' to NDB and hold.

tommoutrie:
What would you do on plate 11-7? The missed approach is initially 2000 feet then a climbing left turn to 3000? Would you climb straight to 3000

Yes, absolutely -- the climb is continuous. The left turn back to the NDB commences leaving 2000'.

tommoutrie:
The plate is clear. This is not a continuous climb to 2700, and 11-7 is not continuous to 3000

:eek:

[FullWings]

Tom, I think you might be misinterpreting the design ethos of approach plates. The *primary* role of these procedures is not traffic separation but approach alignment and terrain clearance. Traffic separation is the job of ATC and the pilots, pilots only if ATC is unable to help. Yes, keeping inbounds and missed approaches away from each other is good but not at the expense of everything else.

For example, there are many airfields from which the departure says climb on a heading/track to XXXX then turn and climb to ZZZZ. This is simply because if you turned en-route before reaching XXXXft, you'd hit something! The climb is continuous but the turn cannot be made until the restriction is made.

You can invent scenarios all day but nothing kills you more quickly than unexpected or unavoidable ground. If you were aware of conflicting traffic before the radio went kaput, you might modify your actions in the light of it but not by exposing yourself to CFIT risks. Most pilots would switch to the previous frequency and/or 121.5 and try and coordinate from there. TCAS is a backup to this.

[FlightPathOBN]

Because I love you guys...original source document...

http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ScreenHunter_58-Jun.-12-12.31.jpg

[tommoutrie]

I'm not! I completely agree that 11-7 is continuous. But the 5D condition means that 11-5 is not. The condition is intended to keep the outbound and inbound radials separated. Of course you can get clearance to climb continuously but that's not what the plate says. The difference between the two plates, the 5D condition, makes that clear. Ignore it if you want but don't misread the plate and believe that it's a continuous climb. Get clearance to do it, or bust it if you want, but that's not what the plate says. Feedback to jeppesen is the important thing. They can negotiate with the national authorities to change these things but I'm not a fan of mis reading what it says.

What's to disagree with? The difference in the plates is clear, you can call atc for clearance to get the continuous climb, and I totally agree that being close to the ground is uncomfortable. As I have made clear, I would get clearance to climb. I also think the plate design is a bit bizarre and it's unnecessary for an aircraft to be held at that height over rising terrain but I reiterate, daft or not, that is clearly what the plate says.

[FlightPathOBN]

The *primary* role of these procedures is not traffic separation but approach alignment and terrain clearance. Traffic separation is the job of ATC and the pilots, pilots only if ATC is unable to help. Yes, keeping inbounds and missed approaches away from each other is good but not at the expense of everything else.

Any procedure has to take into account all of the clearances to the airspace and the other procedures, and must maintain min sep within the boundary of the procedure.

[Zeffy]

tommoutrie
I completely agree that 11-7 is continuous.



Respectfully sir -- that is not what you said in post #62 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/516845-ltai-missed-approach-procedure-4.html#post7889770)
tommoutrie
What would you do on plate 11-7? The missed approach is initially 2000 feet then a climbing left turn to 3000? Would you climb straight to 3000?

The plate is clear. This is not a continuous climb to 2700, and 11-7 is not continuous to 3000.

[Denti]

The 5D condition in its own doesn't make it a discontinued climb, it is only a restriction where to start the turn, and not so rare in itself as well. It is pretty common to have missed approaches where one has to reach both a distance and an intermediate altitude during a continous climb. Like for example the missed approaches in EDDK.

[BOAC]

OBN - if you REALLY love us, could you look at post #28 and comment on the g/a track on the AIP chart - as I posted?

While you are feeling 'love', what is YOUR take on the ILS2 g/a altitudes?

[tommoutrie]

Sorry zeffy, in typing on a tiny windows mobile phone on a gprs signal in Kazakhstan. I cant see the whole sentence in one go when i type. I wanted to point out the difference in the plates and the 5D condition. I was hoping someone would point out the immediate action strip says 2000 on plate 11-7. The reason it is continuous is that the climb to 2000 feet is followed by the onward climbing turn. 2000 feet is the condition for the turn. On 11-5 the initial action is climb 1250. The condition comes next and its the 5D. So you must remain at 1250 until the condition is met. Then you execute the climbing turn. I have made it clear that i would also climb, however, but i would obtain a clearance to do so.

cant see what in typing at all now as its behind the really handy pop up soft keyboard...

[Zeffy]

Thanks for the clarification, Tom.

However, as Denti and others have pointed out, the 5D condition does not of itself stop the climb.

It is regrettable that confusion exists on a fundamental IFR instruction.

[tommoutrie]

You know what? I've read it again. Much more carefully this time. I agree, 1250 is not a condition, it is badly worded, i agree its a continuous climb. I have seen an in and out vertical separation being the important bit but i don't think that's what's going on here. I realise that its simply keeping you above 1250 for the turn. The wording is not great and i apologise for getting it wrong. Still, interesting chat eh..

[tommoutrie]

Its because both conditions need to be satisfied. I don't think the wording is fantastic but id have had a better look if i was going there. I shall post my licence back to the authorities immediately.

[733driver]

Indeed, terribly worded missed approach. I tend to agree the intention is for it to be a continous climb but it doesn't really say that. All missed approach instructions should say something like: climb to 2700', then follow the details (turm when passing 1250ft or DME 5 whatever is later etc.). Or at least say: Cross DME 5 at 1250' or above. This could be so easy.

It's also interestimg how the initial missed approach instructions in the bottom right corner (above the circling minima) says 1250' so that adds to the confusion. I would expect to see the first stop altitute there.

How is the missed approach coded in the FMS? DME 5 at 1250' or at or above?

[Luc Lion]

Sure, this missed approach can only be legally flown in a C150.

[Zeffy]

tommoutrie
You know what? I've read it again. Much more carefully this time. I agree, 1250 is not a condition, it is badly worded, i agree its a continuous climb.

Thank you -

Yes, the intent is the same as a couple of random examples from the UK AIP -- both are continuous climbs:

EGJB ILS/DME/VOR Rwy 09
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/GURMAP_zpsf6c746bf.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/GURMAP_zpsf6c746bf.png.html)

EGTE NDB/DME Rwy 26
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/XRMAP_zpsf54c305b.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/XRMAP_zpsf54c305b.png.html)

Is the "conditional" wording above obviously superior to the instructions on the LTAI plates?....

Obviously superior for non-native English speakers?

[FlightPathOBN]

BOAC,

ahhh the love...

First off, I would ask the OP why his airline provides a chart that is outdated.... :mad:

Second, I would think, really, 1250. leaving that aside, from the current plate...

http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ScreenHunter_58-Jun.-12-14.29-e1371072652574.jpg

I see there is no level section, so now I have to figure out what my ragiddy ass aluminum tube needs to use as a DA so I dont cross dat line. :eek:

http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ScreenHunter_58-Jun.-12-14.46.jpg

With at least 50' momentary descent, my DA is gonna be 250 HAT, or 426 (??)
so that my minima.

Quick math shows the climb grade at about 5.25%, so again, I hope the boys back in the hood calc'd my weight vs temp right.
I already know that if I am EO, my raggity ass tube aint goin dat way...
I better call for help from ATC if that is the case...

The instructions are very clear, climb to 2000 on bearing 330 then left....
no more 5DME stuff...

EDIT: turn stuff

btw, I sent a question to the Turkish CAA procedure design people..will post regarding

[Capn Bloggs]

I'm glad we got the two non-comms aircraft doing missed approaches crashing into one another sorted out. I note that there are SIX approach frequencies so I assume that the airport is equipped with some modicum of ATC and that collisions over the top between SID, STAR, APP and Missed App probably won't happen any time soon...

With at least 50' momentary descent, my DA is gonna be 250 HAT, or 426 (??)
so that my minima.
It's an ILS. What are you adding 50ft for?

Quick math shows the climb grade at about 5.25%, so again, I hope the boys back in the hood calc'd my weight vs temp right.
How'd you work that out? There aren't any altitude/distance requirements in the missed approach to meet that I can see.

[mushroom69]

You have the ils, not the ils/dme approach! There are many approaches to the 36C, also to the parallel 36R, which all have differing altitudes.....sneaky .....not love!

[mushroom69]

I think you are being very very sleepy or tricky here, as the approach you are referring to is NOT the approach he asked about in the first place!

Adding 50 feet to an ILS........????????? BACK TO SCHOOL!

[mushroom69]

The examples you provide are not equivalent. These are Climb to XXXX OR a fix and then turn. The approach 36C ILS/DME is Climb to XXXX, turn back after XXX, climb to XXXX

Not the same at all.

[vilas]

Hi all
Lot of reasoning and logic about obstacles, incoming trffic etc. have been expressed to decide whether to maintain 1250ft. What is required is straight forward meaning of the procedure as written otherwise everybody will be doing different things. Important information like restricting altitude will always have words like "climb and maintain till passing". In absence of it, it is unrestricted climb. The the 1250ft condition is for the turn provided you are 5DME. There is no gradient mentioned so it minimum 2.1% for twins by regulation.

[Zeffy]

Not the same at all.

At the risk of simply re-stating personal interpretations, it might be helpful to juxtapose the Missed Approach instructions for LTAI and EGJB.

Please bear with me...

Let's review, then delete the conditional distances from each.

Original Instructions on each approach plate:

LTAI ILS DME-1 36C:

MISSED APCH: Climb on R-330 AYT to 1250', then turn LEFT (not before D5.0 AYT)
climbing to 2700' proceed to VOR then TOPUZ and hold.


EGJB ILS/DME/VOR Rwy 09

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/GURMAP_zpsf6c746bf.png (http://s202.photobucket.com/user/zeffy_bucket/media/GURMAP_zpsf6c746bf.png.html)


----- After DELETING the conditional distances from each instruction -----

LTAI would read::

MISSED APCH: Climb on R-330 AYT to 1250', then turn LEFT,
climbing to 2700' proceed to VOR then TOPUZ and hold.


And EGJB would read:

Climb straight ahead to 1300, then climbing turn right to VOR GUR at 2000...


Are the similarities between the intentions of the procedure designers more apparent, now?

[Capn Bloggs]

There is no gradient mentioned so it minimum 2.1% for twins by regulation.
No, PANS OPS Missed Approaches are designed at 2.5% (unless otherwise stated) which will provide 100ft obstacle clearance until the MSA.

[vilas]

I was talking about 200ft MDA.

[BOAC]

OBN - the 'altitude' query referred to your interpretation of the M/A wording for 'ILS/DME2' , not 'ILS', which is unambiguous. Did you ask Turkey why they had drawn the YT 300 track from the IAYT?

Re the wording/confusion over '1250' - LIDO appear to have (sensibly) interpreted it as a continual (but conditional) climb by adding the 'whichever is later' which is so simple and unambiguous. I am sure the intention of Turkey is a continual climb to 2700', but why write words which could cause confusion in a high work-load environment?

I think OBN's confusion over 'adding 50' for an ILS is caused by the use of OCA in AIP's to allow for differing interpretations of DA by national and company rules?

[Cough]

Flightpath OBN -

First off, I would ask the OP why his airline provides a chart that is outdated....

I suspect that he doesn't fly for a real airline, more a virtual one...

Check his website (chrome translates it well enough...)

However, this discussion is still a good one.

[Cough]

You know what, over the few years I've been doing this job this topic does occasionally show its head.

Wouldn't it be nicer if the first part of the missed approach procedure description always read 'Climb 2700'. Of course you replace 2700 with whatever the initial block is for the procedure in question. Routing to me is secondary (and to be honest nearly always neglected when ATC come back with the heading to fly:ok:) Getting the aircraft climbing (to the correct level) is quite important...

Now, how can we get ICAO to read PPRuNe?

(ps Dear NavTech - Thanks for highlighting the initial block ALT - Soooo useful!)

[FlightPathOBN]

I asked Jepp for a clarification on the procedure.
Given the difference in the AIP wording and the Jepp wording, Jepp is going to contact the Turkish Authorities and ask for a clarification of intent for the missed approach procedure.

Once they hear back, they will advise.

[Mashuk]

Dear OBN,
I apprecite you for your support.
Also I appreciate everybody for their opinion.
LIDO did my minds clear.

As for FMS boxes.
I saw few times where FMS data base was not agree with charts.
For example look FMS HEGN ILS 34 from HGD VOR hdg and distance to base turn and compare that with Jeppesen chart. You will be surprised.
It's just a simple to check nav data in FMS and in charts.
So, it's not always FMS will help but somtime might add some headache.

[aterpster]

Mashuk:

As for FMS boxes.
I saw few times where FMS data base was not agree with charts.
For example look FMS HEGN ILS 34 from HGD VOR hdg and distance to base turn and compare that with Jeppesen chart. You will be surprised.
It's just a simple to check nav data in FMS and in charts.
So, it's not always FMS will help but somtime might add some headache.

Below is the current Jepp chart for the HEGN ILS DME Rwy 34. I also have a current nav database, which offers two ILS approaches, the A/B base leg and the C/D base leg.

I loaded the approach, which showed a missed approach procedure exactly per the charted missed approach on the Jepp chart; e.g., at the Runway 34 threshold fly a 341 track to 2,000 feet, turn right to HGD VOR, then enter the holding pattern as published.

What's the issue with that?


http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/HEGNILSDMERwy34_zpse9008c85.jpg

[BOAC]

Below is the current Jepp chart for the HEGN ILS DME Rwy 34. I also have a current nav database, which offers two ILS approaches, the A/B base leg and the C/D base leg.

I loaded the approach, which showed a missed approach procedure exactly per the charted missed approach on the Jepp chart; e.g., at the Runway 34 threshold fly a 341 track to 2,000 feet, turn right to HGD VOR, then enter the holding pattern as published.

What's the issue with that? - I would suggest the issue is that he was not referring to that?For example look FMS HEGN ILS 34 from HGD VOR hdg and distance to base turn and compare that with Jeppesen chart. You will be surprised.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

You're right. I was reading too quickly. As I said previously my FMS offers two different base legs, the A/B and the C/D.

They both turn at HGD 10.0 DME but one goes outbound on a 151 track and the other on a 140 track, as per the chart.

[Mashuk]

Just build waypoint from HGD VOR R140 D10 DME and compare with waypoint in database. You will see the diference.
In database also different radials.
I will appreciate if anybody explain to me the reason.

[marioett]

To come back to the initial question:

There is an answer from the Turkish CAA:
1. The pilot is not required to maintain the 1250ft until 5 DME.
2. The pilot is allowed to continue climb to 2700ft if the 1250ft are reached first.
3. The missed approach text is re-evaluated by the procedure design specialists and there might be a change with the next AIRAC amendment.

As you have seen in the discussion, there are different interpretations possible by different pilots. The chart providers have to follow the AIP source, they should not provide interpretations of the source. Therefore it is interesting to learn that some chart providers have a text which is different to the AIP...

[BOAC]

Therefore it is interesting to learn that some chart providers have a text which is different to the AIP. - thanks for the update. Yes, that is concerning, although I do think LIDO actually 'read' it right. There is probably an argument that a verbatim reproduction of any procedure should be mandatory? That way hopefully questions will be asked. I suspect none of the LIDO users were aware of the disparity, and had LIDO been wrong...........................

[FlightPathOBN]

Just rec'd the similar response from Jepp...

1) Could you please confirm that an aircraft which reaches the 1250ft before 5 DME is not required to maintain the 1250ft until it reaches the 5 DME?

YES, an aircraft which reaches the 1250ft before 5 DME is not required to maintain the 1250ft until it reaches the 5 DME

2) The pilot is allowed to continue the climb to 2700ft?

YES, cleared to continue the climb to 2700 ft.

Our standards department is currently evaluating, if a Chart Change Notice in addition to textual missed approach depiction is necessary given the response from the authorities and we will await the next AIRACs for possible textual changes to revise the LTAI charts affected.

[Denti]

Quite probable that LIDO just did what you did as well and asked the Turkish authorities what was meant and then used a different wording to reflect the intended procedure.

[FlightPathOBN]

Its tough sometimes trying to fit a bunch of words in that box....