Missed Approach - when to climb?

[Virtually There]

Here's an interesting one I can't seem to find an answer for in the AIP.

ENR 1.10.1
A missed approach must be executed if:
a. during the final segment of an instrument approach, the aircraft is not maintained within the applicable navigation tolerance for the aid in use; or
b. during an instrument approach and below MSA (as specified on the IAL chart) the performance of the radio aid becomes suspect, or the radio aid fails;

Most plates say "track xxx, at xxxx feet turn left/right" etc. Diagramatically, they show the climb beginning at the MAPt.

In both the above cases, there's a good chance you won't haven't reached the MAPt or DA/MDA. So do you level out and track to the MAPt before starting to climb in the hope of getting visual, or do you start your climb straight away knowing that if your aid has failed and/or you are off track, you may be heading for a nearby obstacle (because you are no longer on the IAP flight path)?

I have seen both suggestions in other literature, but can't find a definitive answer in the regs. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place . . .

[Centaurus]

So do you level out and track to the MAPt before starting to climb

Good airmanship would suggest you should immediately climb to the published missed approach altitude while maintaining track towards the missed approach point and subsequent missed approach track. Never count on breaking visual.

[Virtually There]

That would be my interpretation. The regs state a "Missed Approach must be executed . . .". And if you read any IAP plate, it usually says something like "Track, climb" or "Track, at XXXXFT turn here/there".

My understanding is that in executing a Missed Approach under 1.10.1 (a) or (b), you must immediately track and climb as directed by the plate. However, I have been told there is nothing in the regs that strictly prohibits you from levelling out in the hope of breaking visual. The logic is that by levelling out, you are not continuing the approach, but rather conducting the Missed Approach by tracking for the MAPt and then climbing where indicated by the plate (dash line).

I guess this isn't an airmanship argument, but rather "if the regs don't say you can't, you can" type argument. I'm just curious what everyone else's opinion is.

[simmple]

Sometimes the initial missed approach alt is below your current alt so you have to carry on down

[underfire]

My understanding is that in executing a Missed Approach under 1.10.1 (a) or (b), you must immediately track and climb as directed by the plate.

Absolutely NOT!

Under (a) You must follow the track down to the MDA level, and then climb as directed. It may be a level segment, it may be a direct climb, but you still drive down to that point.

You can go missed at anytime during final segment, so to go missed early and direct climb, you may have issues with driving into the DEP ac, or ac crossing procedures.

In case (b) the assumption in the regulation is that you were on the flightpath, and after the MAP/MSA, the radio aid fails. (note during an instrument approach). If this is the case, you are outside of the parameters of what is on the plate, with the missed approach criteria.

You cannot level off below the MDA before the MAPt, if that is what you are saying, you are outside the criteria to be able to climb and have obstacle protection. Want to meet the Tower?

Going missed below the MDA/DA is balked, and outside criteria. As the question is open to the level below MDA, best to get directions from ATC rather than the plate and hope.

[Ascend Charlie]

Under (a) You must follow the track down to the MDA level, and then climb as directed. It may be a level segment, it may be a direct climb, but you still drive down to that point.

Where the heck are you reading that?

It is plainly stated that you are OUTSIDE the nav tolerance, and are NOT permitted to continue the approach, and definitely not descend to MDA (because you are no longer in the protected area), so pour on the coals and climb out of there, and follow the tracking directions on the plate.

In case (b) the assumption in the regulation is that you were on the flightpath, and after the MAP/MSA, the radio aid fails.

Again, where are you seeing that? The aircraft is probably below the 10nm MSA, but not yet reached the MDA or MAP, and the aid fails or becomes suspect. Again, you cannot be sure where you are, and the only place you want to be is NOT where you are. Make Mister Proach.

[drpixie]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - no wonder there people struggling with IFR and IREX.

(Most of) IFR is quite logical - if you KNOW you are safe, proceed; if you can't be SURE that you're safe, go somewhere safe.

On an approach, the only place that you KNOW is safe, is within tolerance on the approach. So if you're out of tolerance (so god knows what's in front of you now), or if you think the aid might be wrong (god knows where you actually are), you go somewhere safe - UP - NOW.

AIP actually makes it clear, but only in one or two places, CASA drafting :ugh:. Go up now, continue tracking to the MAPt, then do the rest of missed approach.

Underfire
Under (a) You must follow the track down to the MDA level, and then climb as directed. It may be a level segment, it may be a direct climb, but you still drive down to that point
No way - don't know what you guys do special over there, but if you do that here, you won't be working for me.

[Virtually There]

In both the above cases, there's a good chance you won't haven't reached the MAPt or DA/MDA.
I guess the question is, what does "execute a Missed Approach" prior to the MAPt mean in terms of the regs? We know it means immediately track to the MAPt and carry out the published MA.

But does it also mean immediately begin your climb prior to the MAPt?

My instincts would tell me if I was no longer offered the protection of the steps along the IAP flight path, it would be a good idea to start climbing

The reason I ask is because you might be surprised how others I've spoken to have interpreted the regs.

[A320ECAM]

What's with the large font?

As others have wisely stated, the correct (and only correct) answer is abandon the approach and climb immediately.

Let me simplify it with you with this question:

You are on approach in IMC and you don't have a clue where you are. Yes, go around. But if you don't know where you are, then how the hell are you going to track to the missed approach point? Guess where it is? Descend down to DH/MDA and then perform a go around? Maybe CFIT?

So there you have it, as soon as you're not sure, TOGA and climb! Don't forget power then pitch!

[Capn Bloggs]

Climb to the Missed Approach Altitude ASAP! You no longer "know here you are" with respect to the procedure tracking requirements, so get the hell outta there.

Underfire appears to be on something.

You can go missed at anytime during final segment, so to go missed early and direct climb, you may have issues with driving into the DEP ac, or ac crossing procedures.

Do you really think ATC would clear an aircraft for an approach and not consider that said aeroplane might give the approach away and climb to the Missed Approach Altitude at any point?

Give us an example of where an aeroplane doing a missed approach could conflict with a departing aircraft.

You cannot level off below the MDA before the MAPt, if that is what you are saying
Quite obviously that is not what he is saying.

[john_tullamarine]

Simplicity and don't hit the hard bits which might be to either side of the prescribed tracking details .. Centaurus has been missing the hard bits for a very long time ... I would heed his counsel. Likewise Ascend Charlie and a couple of other posters.

My understanding is that in executing a Missed Approach under 1.10.1 (a) or (b), you must immediately track and climb as directed by the plate.

.. providing you are intending to maintain the prescribed plate tracking throughout.

However, I have been told there is nothing in the regs that strictly prohibits you from levelling out in the hope of breaking visual

The OP's question relates to a situation where the approach has been screwed up for one reason or another .. unless you can positively maintain the prescribed track you are entertaining a CFIT note in the daily papers. Some approaches wend their way amongst rocky bits ... the question poses the problem that you have lost your way.

"if the regs don't say you can't, you can"

The Regs prescribe minimum standards ... commonsense ought to require something better, one thinks ?

Sometimes the initial missed approach alt is below your current alt so you have to carry on down

You don't have an instrument rating, do you ? Unless you are on the prescribed track, etc., you are not permitted to "carry on down". I do hope that your comment was tongue in cheek

You can go missed at anytime during final segment, so to go missed early and direct climb, you may have issues with driving into the DEP ac, or ac crossing procedures.

Below MSA you must stay on the prescribed track (think about it .. rocky bits to the sides ?) while climbing. Unless you know where you are, you follow the missed right there and then ... climb while tracking to the MAPt and then the prescribed missed approach tracking details.

Separation is a normal management thing so the radio is your friend.

You can give the approach away at any time. For instance, during my initial GA rating test I screwed up the DME letdown and gave it away early, climbed back up and did it right second time around. The DCA examiner (who was a bit of a pedantic chap, if rather affable) wasn't in the least bit concerned. I suspect that, had I tried to salvage it first time around, we might have been going back for a debrief and some more training.

Main thing is .. if you are below the prescribed safe altitudes, one must treat it as a critical terrain avoidance issue.

In case (b) the assumption in the regulation is that you were on the flightpath, and after the MAP/MSA, the radio aid fails

Very well behaved radios in your machine, I would venture.

Reminds me of a tale from one of the initial Ansett DC9 endorsement chaps in the States. The IP pulled an engine on the first takeoff ... when my colleague raised a concern later about this .. the IP observed .. "Well, son, we don't know just when the engine is going to fail over here .."

So what do you suggest you might do if the aid has the temerity to fail during the initial parts of the approach ?

You cannot level off below the MDA before the MAPt, if that is what you are saying, you are outside the criteria to be able to climb and have obstacle protection

So long as you are maintaining the prescribed track and observing minimum altitudes, there is no problem with flying level or climbing ... the obstacle protection is lateral.

best to get directions from ATC rather than the plate and hope

Hope should be the province of religious folk, not pilots. Knowing is better than hoping. What use is ATC unless they have radar data to assist in terrain separation ?

if you KNOW you are safe, proceed; if you can't be SURE that you're safe, go somewhere safe.

Now, that's not a bad attitude, methinks.

Just occasionally you come across a thread on Pprune that you can't believe is an actual discussion and well.. here we are.

I'd go along with that ..

The reason I ask is because you might be surprised how others I've spoken to have interpreted the regs.

The Regs are all well and good .. but sound risk management, if that suggests something more conservative ... is the way to go. Anyway, the only folk who are able to interpret the Regs are the legal eagles. The rest of us use them as a starting point for sensible risk management decision making.

You are on approach in IMC and you don't have a clue where you are. Yes, go around. But if you don't know where you are, then how the hell are you going to track to the missed approach point?

Some places overseas, due to surrounding mountains, you can't do your own thing .. you have to do whatever you can to maximise the probability that you are remaining within the protected areas .. called DR as I recall. Certainly, we are rather fortunate in Oz with terrain .. but, as more than a few over the years have proved ... treat the risks with abandon and the outcome may not be pretty.

There are very few absolute guarantees in flying .. but heaps of risk management decision making ie commonsense.

[Virtually There]

What's with the large font?
Sorry, browser settings didn't show it. Fixed now, hopefully.
You are on approach in IMC and you don't have a clue where you are. Yes, go around. But if you don't know where you are, then how the hell are you going to track to the missed approach point? Guess where it is?
Well yes. How do you track to a VOR if your radio nav aid fails and you only have one? You could try the GPS, I guess, but are you going to start mucking around with it at such a critical time (assuming it wasn't already tuned to the VOR in this example)?

[Capn Bloggs]

What's with the large font?
Not a bad idea, don't need my glasses... :D

[Oakape]

If some of those posting on PPRuNe actually get a job in the airlines & then get a command, I think it will be time to start catching the train! Unbelievable!

[josephfeatherweight]

You must follow the track down to the MDA level
I'm assuming that most are getting concerned about this advice - I'm hoping that we are misinterpreting this advice as it's not completely clear (to me!) what he is saying - is underfire suggesting to continue descent?

[scavenger]

If someone needs a regulatory reference to tell them to climb if the navaid is dodgy or they're off track, they should hand their licence back in.

As the OP has requested a reference though, try looking at CAR 178. Amazing how many IFR pilots are not aware of this regulation, or cannot apply it correctly.

If you're not flying in accordance with an IAL (that requires flying within specified tolerances using serviceable navaid), and none of the other circumstances in 178(4) apply, then you must fly not below a published or calculated LSALT - which means climb immediately.

In addition, there are some plates like YSRI RWY 28 ILS that have notes like:

IF MISSED APCH CONDUCTED PRIOR TO MM, CLIMB NOT ABV 2500FT UNTIL MM/0.2 DME RIC

This indicates they are expecting you to climb if you initiate missed approach before the missed approach point, but just don't want you to go all the way to 3,300 until after the missed approach point, presumably due overlying airspace. But the point is they know you'll climb straight away.

[waren9]

jesus wept.

[Virtually There]

Maybe I need to qualify what is being said: that if there are no known obstacles (you're out bush etc), there is nothing in the regs to prevent the option of leveling out while tracking to the MAPt (presumably dead reckoning, as your radio aid/navaid has failed, or you're out of tolerance to the point you're not quite sure where you are) in the hope of breaking visual. Not a blanket action in any approach, but rather a legal option based on regulatory ambiguity and circumstance.

Take CAR 178 for example:

(4)An aircraft may be flown along a route segment at a height less than the height that is applicable under subregulation (1) or (2):
(b) (ii) in accordance with any instructions published in AIP; or
(c) during an authorised instrument departure procedure or authorised instrument approach procedure

A missed approach is an authorised instrument approach procedure. And I agree, some plates do explicitly direct you to climb before the MAPt or other point. But most just say "Track, climb, turn" etc.

Common sense may tell you to climb immediately, but the regs don't. As far as I can tell. Which is the reason for this thread.

[thefeatheredone]

Maybe I need to qualify what is being said: that if there are no known obstacles (you're out bush etc), there is nothing in the regs to prevent the option of leveling out while tracking to the MAPt (presumably dead reckoning, as your radio aid/navaid has failed, or you're out of tolerance to the point you're not quite sure where you are) in the hope of breaking visual......

This passage may well be the scariest thing I have ever read on here. You seem hell bent on finding a legal way to kill yourself.
Climb as high as you can, as quickly as you can, ANY time you are uncertain of you navaids or position.

[Car RAMROD]

You've made the decision to go missed, so go missed. What is one of the instructions in any missed approach procedure? Climb to xxxx. So climb.

Don't stay level "in hope of getting visual", that's just stupid.

[AerocatS2A]

Maybe I need to qualify what is being said: that if there are no known obstacles (you're out bush etc), there is nothing in the regs to prevent the option of leveling out while tracking to the MAPt (presumably dead reckoning, as your radio aid/navaid has failed, or you're out of tolerance to the point you're not quite sure where you are) in the hope of breaking visual. Not a blanket action in any approach, but rather a legal option based on regulatory ambiguity and circumstance.

Take CAR 178 for example:

(4)An aircraft may be flown along a route segment at a height less than the height that is applicable under subregulation (1) or (2):
(b) (ii) in accordance with any instructions published in AIP; or
(c) during an authorised instrument departure procedure or authorised instrument approach procedure

A missed approach is an authorised instrument approach procedure. And I agree, some plates do explicitly direct you to climb before the MAPt or other point. But most just say "Track, climb, turn" etc.

Common sense may tell you to climb immediately, but the regs don't. As far as I can tell. Which is the reason for this thread.

The MDA or DA is only valid assuming you are on track. If you are not on track, e.g., out of tolerance or navaid failed, then you are no longer established on the approach and the MDA/DA is no longer valid for your position. You are now in a position where you no longer have assured obstacle clearance. You climb straight away because you must get clear of the ground. You track to the MAPT and then track via the missed approach so that you follow the ground track the procedure designs came up with to keep you clear of hills, restricted areas etc.

If it doesn't specifically say in the regs that you must climb immediately it's because nobody ever conceived that anyone would think otherwise.

[AerocatS2A]

Maybe I need to qualify what is being said: that if there are no known obstacles (you're out bush etc), there is nothing in the regs to prevent the option of leveling out while tracking to the MAPt (presumably dead reckoning, as your radio aid/navaid has failed, or you're out of tolerance to the point you're not quite sure where you are) in the hope of breaking visual. Not a blanket action in any approach, but rather a legal option based on regulatory ambiguity and circumstance.

If it was ok to do as you suggest then the MSA would allow it.

[Virtually There]

This passage may well be the scariest thing I have ever read on here. You seem hell bent on finding a legal way to kill yourself.
LOL! I'm not trying to kill myself. If you read the start of the thread, the proposition was put that depending on how you interpret the term "execute a missed approach" (as per the regs) it is conceivable you could level out track to the MAPt and then start your climb in the hope of breaking visual.

I'm not arguing whether it is the right thing to do or not (I've already stated my opinion on the matter), I'm just asking how others interpret the regs and if there are, in fact, any regs that stipulate you must climb immediately.

Call it a hypothetically argument, if you like - though I have heard opinions from both sides.

[Virtually There]

The MDA or DA is only valid assuming you are on track. If you are not on track, e.g., out of tolerance or navaid failed, then you are no longer established on the approach and the MDA/DA is no longer valid for your position. You are now in a position where you no longer have assured obstacle clearance. You climb straight away because you must get clear of the ground. You track to the MAPT and then track via the missed approach so that you follow the ground track the procedure designs came up with to keep you clear of hills, restricted areas etc.

If it doesn't specifically say in the regs that you must climb immediately it's because nobody ever conceived that anyone would think otherwise.
Well, some have thought otherwise. But I agree with everything else you've written.

[AerocatS2A]

LOL! I'm not trying to kill myself. If you read the start of the thread, the proposition was put that depending on how you interpret the term "execute a missed approach" (as per the regs) it is conceivable you could level out track to the MAPt and then start your climb in the hope of breaking visual.

If they're hoping to break visual then they're not flying a missed approach. Once you start flying the missed approach, you've stopped "hoping to break visual".

Maintaining altitude and hoping to break visual is just continuing the approach.

[Virtually There]

Are you sure you aren't...
?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm not. And if you read my posts, that's pretty obvious. I put a proposition, and I asked for opinions on the regs. But this being the prune, I expected to get more than I asked for . . . and I wasn't wrong. :}

[simmple]

Sometimes the initial missed approach alt is below your current alt so you have to carry on down

You don't have an instrument rating, do you ? Unless you are on the prescribed track, etc., you are not permitted to "carry on down". I do hope that your comment was tongue in cheek

Didn't read the original question properly!
We did some sim training, on ils with initial miss app alt 1500'
Given go around from tower about 1800'
This was to get us to understand how to get aircraft out of ils mode so it would level at 1500' to a defined dme on the plate, then continue the misap procedure.

We did know where we were though

[Virtually There]

If they're hoping to break visual then they're not flying a missed approach. Once you start flying the missed approach, you've stopped "hoping to break visual".

Maintaining altitude and hoping to break visual is just continuing the approach.
What happens if, for example, you go out of tolerance/the aid fails, you start to conduct the MA (climb, track) and you suddenly break visual? Are you not now legally entitled to conduct a visual approach (circling or straight in, assuming you're not too high)? I believe that's where this whole idea stems from . .

[Virtually There]

GA single or multi.

[Shytehawk]

What the hell happened to the Professional in PPRUNE?

[underfire]

This does bring up all sorts of issues, especially the guidance for immediate climb when you dont know where you are?!?!

What does it say about the Missed Approach Point? On an instrument approach, does it say you should, or you SHALL use MAPt as the beginning of a Missed Approach?
How many Missed Approach Points are shown on the plate?

Where does a missed approach procedure and guidance begin? Does it begin just after the the FAF, or just anyplace on the glideslope? It begins at the MAPt. The plates are very clear when you begin climb. Not before, not after. If you need to climb after, you are out of the parameters of the prescribed missed approach procedure.

Bloggs, even at the all hallowed MEL, there have been many incidents where the ac on GA have encrouched on ac on DEP from RW16. I suppose you dont remember the 744 on DEP from RW16, and the 322 that was on final to RW16, did a GA and ran up the backside of the 744? (This is why many plates worldwide, have you turn before the end of the runway)
MEL has crossing procedures that are perpendicular to RW16/34. GA, and simply pull up may also cause a conflict and loss of sep.
As search of the library with incidents involving departing aircraft with aircraft on GA shows over 300 reported loss of seperation incidents since 2000.

This is the benefit of having a coded missed approach, everything has been sorted out. There are no coded missed approach tracks that begin anywhere other that the DA/MDA. You want to go missed, you engage, it will track the ac down to the waypoint, and begin the missed approach procedure, just like anyone should when deciding to go missed. Pull up and pray when you dont know where you are?

[thefeatheredone]

What happens if, for example, you go out of tolerance/the aid fails, you start to conduct the MA (climb, track) and you suddenly break visual? Are you not now legally entitled to conduct a visual approach (circling or straight in, assuming you're not too high)? I believe that's where this whole idea stems from . .

Once you begin the missed approach the first thing you do is re-configure the aircraft. Therefore you would no longer meet the stableised approach criteria. To me there is no chance of a straight in landing.... join the circuit and continue VMC? That's an airmanship question.

[thefeatheredone]

Terminal section says that if a missed approach is conducted from circling, It is assumed you will initiate a climbing turn towards the aid. Missed approach tracking commences at the missed approach point, climbing up to lowest safe commences as soon as you decide to discontinue the approach. If altitude restrictions apply for the climb obviously the need to be complied with. But there is absolutely no requirement to continue down to DA/MDA before climbing.

[Slezy9]

Sometimes the initial missed approach alt is below your current alt so you have to carry on down

Can you let us all know who you fly for? Then we can add that organisation to the avoid list.

[underfire]

I think you have taken a really far to literal understanding of that..

The instructions for the missed approach may be assigned by air traffic control (ATC) prior to the clearance for the approach. If ATC has not issued specific instructions prior to the approach and a missed approach is executed, the pilot must follow the (default) missed approach procedure specified for the approach.

Is the plate a published missed approach procedure?

The literal approach is to do what the plate states and shows to do for a missed approach. It is that simple.

[Trent 972]

Slezy,
KLAX ILS or LOC RWY 24R
FAF = 2,200 ft
MA ALT = 2,000 ft
It seems you're not quite the oracle yet.

edit
As per the OP.
Only in the context of a non-precision approach, it makes for an interesting discussion.

[AerocatS2A]

The instructions for the missed approach may be assigned by air traffic control (ATC) prior to the clearance for the approach. If ATC has not issued specific instructions prior to the approach and a missed approach is executed, the pilot must follow the (default) missed approach procedure specified for the approach.

Is the plate a published missed approach procedure?

The literal approach is to do what the plate states and shows to do for a missed approach. It is that simple.

You don't continue descending though, as you stated in your first post, you climb straight away while tracking to the MAPT, then you commence tracking via the procedure.

Slezy, there is nothing wrong with what Trent is saying. If the missed approach altitude is below the altitude you go missed at, then you need to descend to it. Otherwise what altitude would you climb to? 5000? 6000? Some other random number?

[Car RAMROD]

Underfire, AIP ENR 1.5 2.6.3 specifically allows climb before the MAPT. This paragraph is basically stating that if you begin your climb before the MAPT you must continue to the MAPT and then follow the procedure; or in other words don't follow the lateral tracking instructions from prior to the MAPT.


As for traffic at MEL etc? Just say your callsign, "going around" and what you are doing straight away (ie prune 123 going around climbing 5000", let ATC do the rest. If you are coming up the clacker of another plane, they'll probably tell you to turn- "or as otherwise directed by ATC", remember that?


Here's another thing to think about. What is the go around/missed approach procedure in your aircraft manual? Does it tell you to stay level or descend? No, it tells you to climb.


I think all the smart people who know what they are doing (and are safe operators) are all saying CLIMB, don't remain level and hope.

[Slezy9]

Yep, fair call.

I mis-read what was written.

Sorry.

[ga_trojan]

So what happens on 34R at SYD then? Assuming you go around 4 miles out, do you track to the MAP before turning or do you turn at 600'?

[Derfred]

The regs are normally written for the lowest common denominator.

I feel we have just reached a new low.

Standby for more regs. :confused:

[AerocatS2A]

So what happens on 34R at SYD then? Assuming you go around 4 miles out, do you track to the MAP before turning or do you turn at 600'?

Track to the MAP.

[Virtually There]

Once you begin the missed approach the first thing you do is re-configure the aircraft. Therefore you would no longer meet the stableised approach criteria. To me there is no chance of a straight in landing.... join the circuit and continue VMC? That's an airmanship question.
Fair point, but as you say, you may still be configured for a circling approach.

AIP ENR 1.5 2.6.3 specifically allows climb before the MAPT. This paragraph is basically stating that if you begin your climb before the MAPT you must continue to the MAPT and then follow the procedure; or in other words don't follow the lateral tracking instructions from prior to the MAPT.
I agree, it makes provision for climbing prior to the MAPt. And we can rule out any precision approach in the proposed scenario, as it is standard procedure to climb out before the MAPt once you reach DA. The ILS glidepath takes you right down to the threshold, so even if you did level off at any point, you're not going to make the runway.

But a non-precision approach is slightly different, as there is a horizontal buffer once you reach the MDA. With a circling approach (and even straight-in) it's quite conceivable you could level out, break visual and still land. And if you are, say 5nm out and still above the MDA, is there anything illegal about maintaining altitude prior to the MAPt before commencing climb?

Let's take it a step further and rule out an aid failure. You're out of tolerance (half-scale deflection VOR, RNAV, 5-degrees NDB), but you still know where you are, and there are no known obstacles in the area.

This is the scenario being proposed. And legally, it seems to hold water.

Please remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here - I'm not condoning this procedure. I'm looking at it strictly from a legal point of view.

[Car RAMROD]

You're out of tolerance (half-scale deflection VOR, RNAV, 5-degrees NDB), but you still know where you are, and there are no known obstacles in the area.

This is the scenario being proposed. And legally, it seems to hold water.


I'd say no, it doesn't. You are out of tolerance of the approach, so what is your safe height for your current location (MSA) and how do you get there (CLIMB)?

It's a little like saying "I'm enroute tracking to the aid at route LSALT, but I go out of tolerance. I'll just stay at this height anyway." No, you'd go to the grid LSALT, or MSA if you've got it.

[Virtually There]

Ah, but I am executing a Missed Approach in accordance with 1.10.1 . . . it's just that I haven't started climbing yet because the regs do not state you must commence an immediate climb unless you are at the MAPt.

So again, it comes down to when are you legally required to climb out during a MA.

Apologies, I know this is getting a bit tedious now and ignores the fact most would instinctively immediately climb out as part of their MA procedure. The point I'm trying to make is, it doesn't appear the regs prevent you from leveling off prior to the MAPt, and this has been used to create the proposition I initially put forth. It is not my idea, but I have heard it proposed now from a number of different sources. That's why I'm asking for the legal take.

Unless there's another reg I've missed, this thread has probably run its course.

[ad-astra]

What allows you to be below the MSA?
A servicable navaid and being on an instrument approach within tolerance.
What if you find yourself below MSA without a servicable navaid or out of tolerance?
You must start a climb to the MSA or Missed approach Altitude.

It's that simple!

Why are there 3 pages very very disconcerting dribble.

[thefeatheredone]

In the jepps terminal section 4.10.2 it states "in executing a missed approach, pilots must follow the missed approach procedure specified for the instrument approach flown". To me that clearly states once you have commenced a missed approach, if it says track 123 and climb 3000, you track 123 and climb 3000. If you commence the missed approach before the missed approach point, fine, you will have some altitude in your back pocket... but you must still track to the missed approach point and "follow the missed approach procedure specified for the instrument approach flown".

[Water Wings]

That's why I'm asking for the legal take.

Unless there's another reg I've missed, this thread has probably run its course.
You want a legal take? Have a think for a moment about tort law, a duty of care and negligence (assuming you live!):ugh:

[Virtually There]

AIP GEN 3.3
4.4 An aircraft must not be flown under the IFR, lower than the published lowest safe altitude or the lowest safe altitude calculated in accordance with this section, except when being assigned levels in accordance with ATS surveillance service terrain clearance procedures or when being flown in accordance with a published DME arrival, instrument approach or holding procedure, or except when necessary during climb after departure from an aerodrome, or except during VMC by day (CAR 178 refers).

Is the Missed Approach part of the published approach? Yes. That's what allows you to be below LSAT while conducting it.

What does "execute a Missed Approach" prior to the MAPt legally mean? I asked for legal definitions. None of have been forthcoming. Many have stated how they personally interpret the regs. And that is my point: you can interpret the regs any way you see fit.

[Virtually There]

You want a legal take? Have a think for a moment about tort law, a duty of care and negligence (assuming you live!):ugh:
What has this got to do with me living or dieing? You're the third person who seems to have fixated on this. Care to explain?

[ga_trojan]

Track to the MAP.

Did that in real life and got chewed out by the controller for not following the standard MAP. Can only assume they expect you to turn at the altitude when you reach it regardless of where the Missed Approach Point is.

[thefeatheredone]

It legally means you are either conducting the approach, (within tolerances, aids etc), or you are not, which means therefore you are conducting the missed approach. Its one or the other. There is no scope to waffle around. As soon as you loose an aid, go outside tolerance, don't get visual, it becomes a missed approach. Split second.

[AerocatS2A]

Did that in real life and got chewed out by the controller for not following the standard MAP. Can only assume they expect you to turn at the altitude when you reach it regardless of where the Missed Approach Point is.

They need to use better wording then.

[Virtually There]

It legally means you are either conducting the approach, (within tolerances, aids etc), or you are not, which means therefore you are conducting the missed approach. Its one or the other. There is no scope to waffle around. As soon as you loose an aid, go outside tolerance, don't get visual, it becomes a missed approach. Split second.
Agreed. But pick an RNAV - any RNAV - and read the MA instructions. Most, if not all, state "Track DCT to H, at H turn left/right heading X. Climb to X." - in that order.

If I were to read that literally - in chronological order (full stops and all) - it is telling me to track DCT to H then climb to X. Conversely, the schematic shows the climb-out from the MAPt. Prior to the MAPt there is only the MDA to contend with.

I take the point that the first thing you do in any go-around is achieve a positive rate of climb. However, there appears to be a loophole and some are suggesting it be exploited to maintain level with the possibility of breaking visual and conducting a visual approach. For the umpteenth time, I am NOT suggesting this. But I still cannot see where it is strictly against any reg.

[AerocatS2A]

Agreed. But pick an RNAV - any RNAV - and read the MA instructions. Most, if not all, state "Track DCT to H, at H turn left/right heading X. Climb to X." - in that order.

If I were to read that literally - in chronological order (full stops and all) - it is telling me to track DCT to H then climb to X. Conversely, the schematic shows the climb-out from the MAPt. Prior to the MAPt there is only the MDA to contend with.

I take the point that the first thing you do in any go-around is achieve a positive rate of climb. However, there appears to be a loophole and some are suggesting it be exploited to maintain level with the possibility of breaking visual and conducting a visual approach. For the umpteenth time, I am NOT suggesting this. But I still cannot see where it is strictly against any reg.

For someone who is not suggesting it, you are going a long way to defend it.

No you can not do this.

A. It is really stupid. Mind bogglingly stupid. This should be enough reason.

If you really need legislation to tell you not to be stupid:

B. You are permitted below the MSA/radar vector altitude/LSALT If you are conducting an instrument approach. To be flying the approach you must be within tolerances and have a serviceable navaid. Once you go out of tolerance then the authorisation to be below MSA etc is gone and you must climb.

This shouldn't need to be said. We shouldn't need legislation to tell us how to wipe our arses.

Edit: Be very wary of people who look for loopholes in the law to allow themselves to do something stupid.

[Virtually There]

There's a difference between arguing a point and aligning yourself with it. Lawyers do it all the time. I'm not a lawyer. I hadn't even thought of this scenario myself, yet it appears some would like to attack me for raising it. Fair enough - I knew what to expect when I posted this thread

However, when the ambiguity was recently pointed out to me, curiosity got the better: I wondered how prevalent it was in the industry and what other pilots thought. The arguments I've used have been put to me by those who subscribe to them.

As I said right at the beginning: this isn't about moral judgement, it's about legislation. That's not too hard to understand, is it? I obviously appreciate the time others have taken to post in this thread based on their own interpretations. But is there really any need to get so personal about what is, essentially, an academic argument?

Shoot the messenger all you like - it doesn't change the message.

[Trent 972]

Did that in real life and got chewed out by the controller for not following the standard MAP. Can only assume they expect you to turn at the altitude when you reach it regardless of where the Missed Approach Point is.
AIP ENR 1.5 -10 Missed Approach Tracking
1.10.2 In executing a missed approach, pilots must follow the missed approach procedure specified for the instrument approach flown. In the event that a missed approach is initiated prior to arriving at the MAPT, pilots must fly the aircraft to the MAPT and then follow the missed approach procedure...
You weren't wrong trojan.

[DynamicStall]

From PANS OPS 8186 Vol 1.

Instrument Flight Procedure Design parameters dictate that for flight technical tolerances in a missed approach a pilot reaction time of 0 to +3 seconds from the MAPt before the start of climb.

http://www.flight.org/r/2013/03/570/missed-approach-acceleration-1.jpg

The 'up to 3 seconds' of reaction time is assumed during the 'initial missed approach' segment (see above). From the start of climb the intermediate is commenced and this is where the 2.5% minimum approach climb gradient is commenced.

c) wind: where statistical data are available, a maximum 95 per cent probability on an omnidirectional basis is used. Where no data are available, omnidirectional wind of 56 km/h (30 kt) is used; and
d) flight technical tolerances:
1) pilot reaction time: 0 to +3 s; and
2) bank establishment time: 0 to +3 s.

[Virtually There]

Originally Posted by ga_trojan
Did that in real life and got chewed out by the controller for not following the standard MAP. Can only assume they expect you to turn at the altitude when you reach it regardless of where the Missed Approach Point is.AIP ENR 1.5 -10 Missed Approach Tracking
1.10.2 In executing a missed approach, pilots must follow the missed approach procedure specified for the instrument approach flown. In the event that a missed approach is initiated prior to arriving at the MAPT, pilots must fly the aircraft to the MAPT and then follow the missed approach procedure...You weren't wrong trojan.
Exactly. 1.10.2 does not tell you when to start the climb - it says fly to the MAPt and followed the MA procedure. Yet there are other references (including in the plates themselves) that make allowances for starting the climb as soon as the Missed Approach is commenced prior to the MAPt.

[ga_trojan]

Virtually There the problem with your argument is that you can't guarantee terrain separation. If you are below the MSA/Radar LSALT in cloud and either you go out of tolerance or the aid fails how are you going to guarantee terrain separation? Procedures are built around certain tolerances and if you go outside that or can't determine your position how do you know you won't hit a hill somewhere?

You either have to be visual, or if in cloud on an approach or radar LSALT or above a MSA.

[Nick_F]

You stop descending, track to the missed approach point then follow what's published. Easy!

[ad-astra]

Might I suggest that this is a windup or a thread that realy did not have any substance save for the attention seeking.
If the young man or woman who is defending this thought process so passionately ( but does not agree with it) tries the same on an Examiner or Check Captain then the issue will be resolved.
If he or she flys a approach and missed approach in this manner then the issue may very well be resolved.

Let's hope the Examiner/Check Captain is first.

Either way nature will take it's course!

[AerocatS2A]

There's a difference between arguing a point and aligning yourself with it. Lawyers do it all the time. I'm not a lawyer.

Lawyers are paid to represent a client.

Other people who argue points they don't align with are internet trolls.

I'm not sure which I'd rather be compared to.

[Virtually There]

Might I suggest that this is a windup or a thread that realy did not have any substance save for the attention seeking.
If the young man or woman who is defending this thought process so passionately ( but does not agree with it) tries the same on an Examiner or Check Captain then the issue will be resolved.
If he or she flys a approach and missed approach in this manner then the issue may very well be resolved.

Let's hope the Examiner/Check Captain is first.

Either way nature will take it's course!
That's a very interesting suggestion. Because it alludes to one of only two possibilities: that I discovered and applied this legal loophole all by myself . . . or that it was suggested to me by an ATO and a number of other instructors.

Take your pick. If it's the former, I sure would love the attention . . . :rolleyes:

If it's the latter, well, not even you have offered a legal argument against the practice. So there would really be no grounds for a failed IPC, would there? Prove otherwise. Oh, you can't.

Well, I guess if you can't argue the simple facts, you can always attack me personally . . .


Originally Posted by Virtually There http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/599380-missed-approach-when-climb-post9890319.html#post9890319)
There's a difference between arguing a point and aligning yourself with it. Lawyers do it all the time. I'm not a lawyer.
Lawyers are paid to represent a client.

Other people who argue points they don't align with are internet trolls.

I'm not sure which I'd rather be compared to.

Because ad hominems are an incomparable form of argument - is that what you're trying to say?

[Virtually There]

Virtually There the problem with your argument is that you can't guarantee terrain separation. If you are below the MSA/Radar LSALT in cloud and either you go out of tolerance or the aid fails how are you going to guarantee terrain separation? Procedures are built around certain tolerances and if you go outside that or can't determine your position how do you know you won't hit a hill somewhere?

You either have to be visual, or if in cloud on an approach or radar LSALT or above a MSA.
Completely in agreement.

[Virtually There]

Your scenario is based upon losing an aid, or being out of tolerance, yet you insist on flying to a missed approach point, at the MDA and below the MSA, prior to going around.

How do you know where the MAPt is when you have lost all reference to it?
Ask CASA. AIP ENR 1.5 1.10.2 clearly says "fly to the MAPt", but it doesn't say how. 1.11.1(c) suggests dead reckoning, but not in relation to 1.10.2.

It wasn't suggested to fly down to the MDA, but simply to level off, thus discontinuing the approach, and climbing at the MAPt. The scenario is in relation to flying out of tolerance and being required to execute a missed approach in accordance with the regs. In reality, you may be out of half-scale, but you could still get back on track to fly to the MAPt. Such a maneouvre would keep you in line with the glidepath above MDA until you reached the MAPt.

The question is, what happens in that brief moment when you fall out of tolerance (and by how much)? Again, the argument is the glide slope takes this into account, offering protection not only along the path, but just outside it - obviously up to a point - because it is common for aircraft to fly outside those tolerances on approaches.

[AerocatS2A]

Any tolerances are not to be used intentionally though. See for instance en route tracking. You are not permitted to use en-route tracking tolerances to make minor deviations around weather.

Your authority to be below the MSA relies on you being within tracking tolerance for the approach. If you are outside the tolerance for the approach then you have lost ALL authority to be below the MSA. At this point your altitude is illegal and you must do what you can to make it legal again i.e. climb.

For these people who are proposing doing this, under exactly what circumstances do they imagine it happening? How much fuel do they have? What type of aircraft are they flying? Why don't they just do another approach or fly to an alternate? Why would they even consider turning an already screwed up approach (out of tolerance) into an even more screwed up approach (out of tolerance and intentionally remaining below the MSA)?

It wasn't suggested to fly down to the MDA, but simply to level off, thus discontinuing the approach, and climbing at the MAPt.
If they are "hoping to get visual" then they haven't discontinued the approach have they? You don't "hope to get visual" during the missed approach.

I think that if you really aren't advocating for this personally, rather than "just asking questions" on the internet you should do some real research yourself and ask someone, i.e., CASA, with the authority to give you an answer that you won't repeatedly close your ears to.

Or just ask your self this,

"I have flown out of tolerance on an approach and decided to maintain altitude rather than climb. Subsequently I hit an obstacle that I didn't know was there, oops! Miraculously I survive but some passengers die (oh noes I didn't think that would happen!) How would a court view my action of intentionally remaining below the safe altitude for the position my aircraft was in?"

[Virtually There]

The circumstances in my last post are what they are referring to. The grey area is obviously that you can still legally land whilst executing a missed approach if you break visual and are in a position to conduct a visual approach.

If you go back to my very first post, I asked a legitimate question: when must you legally start to climb in a missed approach if you execute it prior to the MAPt? There was clearly a reason I asked the question, and I stated as such. I went on to expand upon the reasons and scenarios for asking that question. I even suggested (in my first post) that if you were off track you could very well hit an obstacle.

I believed I had covered most bases and was entitled to ask the question of my fellow commercial pilots. But like a lot of prune threads, it quickly degenerated into chest-thumping and name-calling without actually addressing the original question.

I expected that. And here we are. I have done the research in as far as reading the regs - I did that even before I posted here. Which was why I asked - in my very first post - was there something I had missed.

The answer, as it turned out, is no. Yes, I can ask CASA, but we've all asked CASA questions before and received answers that confused the issue even more than when it was first proposed!

In a real-life scenario - such as the last one I posted - a GPS goes down to .1nm, or 185m. Half-scale deflection is about 90m. You could be 100m off centre-line at 5nm out and have to execute a missed approach. The reality is, you're probably not going to hit any obstacles if you level off and reintercept your track enroute to the MAPt. If you happen to break visual - all good and well. But do you legally need to climb before the MAPt? It appears not.

While I do not advocate the above, I can see the reasoning behind it. I've tried to explore that here - for anyone who was interested. But some posters here appear to be more interested in attacking the poster than properly considering what has been put forth.

Why is that? Human nature, I guess.

[AerocatS2A]

Why is that? Human nature, I guess.

No, it's because we just can't believe the question would be asked.

As I said earlier, be very wary of someone trying to find legal loopholes that allows them to do something stupid (not you obviously as you are just asking the question rather than advocating for it). It is akin to someone deciding that the road rules don't apply if you are not on the road and therefore it is not technically illegal to drive at 200 kph down the highway if you stay just off the shoulder of the road.

Look, it is quite possible that there is nothing in the regs that specifically states you must commence the climb immediately (although there are parts that strongly imply that this is expected), but there is more to the law than just the literal interpretation of the words. There are such things as the spirit of a law and also more general concepts such as acting negligently or recklessly.

If you really do fly an approach and get a little out of tolerance, rather than applying the concept of flying the missed approach but not climbing and hoping to get back on track and break visual, why not apply the concept of sustained errors? If you are briefly out of tolerance and fix it promptly then you may have justification for continuing the approach. I would advocate for going around though. When an approach is a general mess it's best to just try it all again, right from the start, and do it properly.

[AerocatS2A]

A published missed approach procedure must not be flown unless commenced at the MAP. If a missed approach climb is initiated before the MAP, the aircraft must track to the MAP before commencing the missed approach procedure.

Not sure if you are aware, but the Jeppesen version of the AIP is basically cut and pasted from the AIP. The above is the electronic Jepp reference, I don't know the AIP reference, it will be there though.

The position you are putting forward seems to hinge on the concept that the missed approach procedure does not start until the MAP and as the climb is part of the procedure, then the climb doesn't start until the MAP either.

The above paragraph disproves this theory.

The first part of the paragraph states that the procedure must start at the MAP. The second part allows for situations where the climb has commenced prior to the MAP. It follows then that the phrase "missed approach procedure" refers only to the tracking of the procedure and not the climb. Otherwise an early climb would not be permitted.

[PPRuNeUser0184]

This whole thread is embarrassing......

[Car RAMROD]

VT, if your mates were doing the 15 ILS to CNS, and decided to go missed at say, 700ft, for whatever reason (be it out of tolerance or u/s navaid) would they really not climb until reaching the 15 DME arc; long after they have tracked to the MAPT and commenced the turn?

If you are tacking the missed approach instructions absolutely literally in the order it's written, that's what they would be doing. Please ask them if they think it's logical, and safe. If they think so, well, that's just insane I'm sorry.

[Derfred]

because it is common for aircraft to fly outside those tolerances on approaches.

WTF? Are you even a pilot? For info the poster who was agreeing with you earlier in the thread isn't one.

I have done the research in as far as reading the regs - I did that even before I posted here. Which was why I asked - in my very first post - was there something I had missed.

The answer, as it turned out, is no.

Rubbish. Of course you are legally required to climb. Look up missed approach climb gradients.

You also go on to say you can discontinue a missed approach and conduct a visual approach. Look up the IFR requirements for visual approaches.

You say this is a purely academic argument. But then you contradict yourself and say that ATOs and instructors are promoting this in practice.

I seriously doubt that. If that's true then the industry is in more trouble than I imagined.

[avi8r84]

Keep reading - ENR 1.1

2.3.9 Terrain and Obstacle Clearance
Obstacle/terrain avoidance while below the LSALT or MSA, as
applicable, is a pilot responsibility except in the circumstances
described in para 2.3.9.1.

2.3.9.3 If visual reference is lost, either through equipment failure or
deteriorating weather conditions, crews MUST CLIMB to the
appropriate LSALT/MSA and advise ATC as soon as
practicable. ATC will treat this as an emergency situation and
may apply emergency separation services.

Not to mention you cannot legally be below LSALT/MSA in IMC without being vectored or following a published approach procedure.

It's a dead argument - move on.

[Virtually There]

WTF? Are you even a pilot? For info the poster who was agreeing with you earlier in the thread isn't one.
WTF? Have you ever done an instrument approach?

WTF? If aircraft didn't occasionally go out of tolerance on an approach, there would be no need for ENR 1.5 1.10.1.

WTF? Can you even read English?

Because if you could, WTF?, you would know that MA climb gradients are plotted from the MAPt, and that this whole thread concerns executing a missed approach prior to the MAPt.

You would also know, WTF?, that any time you break visual with the runway you can execute a landing within the circling area subject to ENR 1.5 1.10.1(c), to wit:

c. a landing cannot be effected from a runway approach, unless a circling approach can be conducted in weather conditions equal to or better than those specified for circling;Do yourself a favor, pal, don't just jump into some thread you haven't taken the time to understand and start asserting your own illiteracy.

It's been spelled out under what circumstances it was proposed to level out, get back on track and fly to the MAPt before climbing - and it was a proposal, not a promotion. I asked if it was legal or not. And not you, nor any one else who has resorted to personal attacks instead of addressing the original question has provided any evidence to the contrary.

So save your sanctimony and back your argument up. Or not.

[Virtually There]

VT, if your mates were doing the 15 ILS to CNS, and decided to go missed at say, 700ft, for whatever reason (be it out of tolerance or u/s navaid) would they really not climb until reaching the 15 DME arc; long after they have tracked to the MAPT and commenced the turn?

If you are tacking the missed approach instructions absolutely literally in the order it's written, that's what they would be doing. Please ask them if they think it's logical, and safe. If they think so, well, that's just insane I'm sorry.
As I've already pointed out, we're not talking about precision approaches.

This is not directed at you, RAMROD, but there are a lot of people here quick to comment and slow to read.

If I'm starting to sound defensive now, well, I didn't start out that way. I don't feel I really need to be respectful, any more, of those who have not afforded me the same courtesy.

[Capt Fathom]

As I've already pointed out, we're not talking about precision approaches

Where was that slipped in?

[Virtually There]

Where was that slipped in?
I agree, it makes provision for climbing prior to the MAPt. And we can rule out any precision approach in the proposed scenario, as it is standard procedure to climb out before the MAPt once you reach DA. The ILS glidepath takes you right down to the threshold, so even if you did level off at any point, you're not going to make the runway.

But a non-precision approach is slightly different, as there is a horizontal buffer once you reach the MDA. With a circling approach (and even straight-in) it's quite conceivable you could level out, break visual and still land. And if you are, say 5nm out and still above the MDA, is there anything illegal about maintaining altitude prior to the MAPt before commencing climb?
Post 50, etc.

[Virtually There]

I don't understand why you persevere with this.

Apologies, I know this is getting a bit tedious now and ignores the fact most would instinctively immediately climb out as part of their MA procedure. The point I'm trying to make is, it doesn't appear the regs prevent you from leveling off prior to the MAPt, and this has been used to create the proposition I initially put forth. It is not my idea, but I have heard it proposed now from a number of different sources. That's why I'm asking for the legal take.

Unless there's another reg I've missed, this thread has probably run its course.
Actually, I got my answer a few pages ago and said as much in Post 52. But, you know, then the seagulls swooped with their suggestions I wanted to kill myself etc, and here we are, flogging a dead horse because everyone reads - or doesn't read - what they want to before commenting.

To those who have remained civil and pointed out various regs and reasons why they think the climb must always start immediately in a MA prior to the MAPt, thank you for taking the time to post.

[AerocatS2A]

Couple of points:

1. On a precision approach the DA is at the MAP, so no, you don't normally climb out before the MAP on a precision approach. However, if you did do a missed approach prior to the DA then you would climb out straight away.

2. You say it is common to be out of tracking tolerance. No, it is not common. What is common, is to track down the middle of the approach and either get visual and land or not get visual and go around. I have never been, nor seen anyone fly, out of tolerance outside of a simulator session.

[Virtually There]

Like you have said before, your ATO and instructors have found a grey area and seem to be thinking too much into it, but it is ultimately at their peril. Such behaviour is seriously frowned upon by airlines, as SOP's rule, and I think a lot of people on here getting upset are doing so for this reason. They are trying to help you and guide you away from listening to something that has no basis in common sense and airmanship.
I understand, and thank you for taking the time to post. This is the GA forum - none of what I've written applies to the jet jockeys - and all I was really asking was for someone to point out the regs. Some did, and I presented counter-arguments highlighting grey areas that had already been considered. It's not a matter of spitting in anyone's face - it was simply about exploring the legalities of a different interpretation of the regs I had recently heard, and wanting to know if there was something that had been overlooked.

For the record, the scenario put to me was slipping out of tolerance on an RNAV at 5 or so miles out and then, in accordance with the regs, leveling out (thus discontinuing the approach), tracking to the MAPt, and commencing the climb as instructed by the plate. If you were to get visual in the mean time, all good and well.

When I first heard this, I argued against it like everyone else here. But then I wondered, is there anything legally wrong with it in certain circumstances?

My mistake was simply trying to explore that here.

[dehg5776]

Instrument approaches contain an apparent level segment, so for an RNAV, the MDA starts (usually, unless there is a step) at the final approach fix. I recall being taught to descend to the MDA as soon as possible after the final approach fix, then fly straight and level if not visual, in order to maximise the chance of becoming visual and then being able to drop the nose and descend to the runway. However, at the airline I fly for, the RNAV is a constant descent approach to the MDA. The missed approach, including an immediate climb of course, is conducted from the MDA, and not the MAPt. There is no level segment. In theory, were I to be 500ft low for the entire approach to the MDA the missed approach may well occur several miles before the MAPt is reached. The MAPt is largely irrelevant, in this case, and passes un-noticed.

[Car RAMROD]

As I've already pointed out, we're not talking about precision approaches.

This is not directed at you, RAMROD, but there are a lot of people here quick to comment and slow to read.

Ok, lets say an arbitrary 900ft off the CNS 15 LLZ. Exact same missed approach, and a non-precision to boot!

Or 1100ft on the 15 RNAV.

Precision or not it doesn't matter.

[Virtually There]

Couple of points:

1. On a precision approach the DA is at the MAP, so no, you don't normally climb out before the MAP on a precision approach. However, if you did do a missed approach prior to the DA then you would climb out straight away.

2. You say it is common to be out of tracking tolerance. No, it is not common. What is common, is to track down the middle of the approach and either get visual and land or not get visual and go around. I have never been, nor seen anyone fly, out of tolerance outside of a simulator session.
1. Yes, if you are bang on glidescope. And your aircraft has altimetre pressure correction. Otherwise, you might be a little under (still within tolerances), or have a 50' higher DA, and reach it just prior to the published MAPt. But now, I think, we might be splitting hairs.

2. So maybe "common" was the wrong choice of words. It happens. I've seen it happen, I've done it myself - and for the record I climbed and flew to the MAPt. Instructors see it all the time - otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. If you only see it in sims, then I'm guessing you likely fly jets with a coupled auto-pilot. But I don't know you, so I'm only going to guess - I'm not going to make an assumption.

[Virtually There]

Ok, lets say an arbitrary 900ft off the CNS 15 LLZ. Exact same missed approach, and a non-precision to boot!

Or 1100ft on the 15 RNAV.

Precision or not it doesn't matter.
Horses for courses. I also said earlier in this thread it wasn't being proposed for every approach; only in certain circumstances where there were no known obstacles and you could still track accurately to the MAPt with your radio nav/GPS etc.

[Virtually There]

I recall being taught to descend to the MDA as soon as possible after the final approach fix, then fly straight and level if not visual, in order to maximise the chance of becoming visual and then being able to drop the nose and descend to the runway.
Yes, and while it's not always ideal, it's safe, legal, and there is a reason behind it. And I take your point about the MAPt vs MDA on an RNAV in a high-peformance aircraft. All this shows is there are different ways of looking at things. And yes, common sense/safety/airmanship should always be the overriding factor. But this is a bulletin board - there is simply no need for people to get so uptight.

[dehg5776]

The whole premis of your initial enquiry was in regards to a navaid failure or being out of tolerance.

If the NDB has failed (or raim loss) then you have no way of flying towards it, so you go missed immediately. I know you have mentioned using dead reckoning to get there, etc, and quoted from ENR, but station passage of an NDB that is no longer working is impossible.

If you are out of tolerance on an apprppach and make an effort to get back on track then this may be accepted by an ATO. It is the sustained and un-noticed devation that isn't good and would lead to a missed approach. This still needs to lead to a missed approach whilst trying to save face by getting back on track. Again, the missed approach includes an immediate climb whilst tracking MAPt, and since you are reconfiguring (gear up, flaps 0, etc), then continuing with a landing if you did break visual can't be done. I also think that, by being out of tolerance and initiating a go around, you have conceded defeat and trying to re-continue an approach, should you become visual, would be seriously wrong and I can't believe that anyone would suggest this.

[Virtually There]

To the first and second points, correct. I quoted the reg and that contains provisions for both aid failure and going out of tolerance. I went back to one of the sources I obtained this from to clarify under what circumstances it was being proposed, and then relayed that here in relation to going out of tolerance at or after the FAF.

To the last point, you don't necessarily have gear and flap down if you are expecting a circling approach at the other end, so there might not be the need to reconfigure. This would be true if you were expecting to circle to the opposite runway upon breaking visual.

If the missed approach includes an immediate climb - as the majority have interpreted here - then you are obviously correct. And that was really the whole point of this thread. No-one was arguing you continue down; the argument was simply if you go out of tolerance and must execute a missed approach as per the regs, can you level out and fly to the MAPt and continue your climb there? Legally, there doesn't appear to be anything preventing this. Though many here have argued the opposite, based on their interpretation the regs.

Like I said earlier, I don't really want to flog a dead horse as pretty much everything that can be said on the subject has been said. I was just getting a bit testy towards the end because a couple of people were being rude. It wasn't my intention to keep going on and on.

[AerocatS2A]

2. So maybe "common" was the wrong choice of words. It happens. I've seen it happen, I've done it myself - and for the record I climbed and flew to the MAPt. Instructors see it all the time - otherwise this thread wouldn't exist. If you only see it in sims, then I'm guessing you likely fly jets with a coupled auto-pilot. But I don't know you, so I'm only going to guess - I'm not going to make an assumption.
Yes, instructors will see it a bit, they are instructing after all. My point was just that once a new IF pilot gets out into the real world and gains just a little experience, flying approaches becomes routine and a missed approach due to being out of tolerance is rare. That goes for hand flown piston twins and the bigger fancier machines.

[Centaurus]

You've made the decision to go missed, so go missed. What is one of the instructions in any missed approach procedure? Climb to xxxx. So climb. Don't stay level "in hope of getting visual", that's just stupid.
One of the hairiest stories I ever heard was that of an overseas 737 operator conducting the Port Vila, Vanuatu, VOR LOC DME Rwy 11 instrument approach. The final approach course down the localiser is 080 degrees. Airport elevation 70 feet. Weather was marginal with rain and low cloud at the minima.

Those familiar with Port Vila will recall the final approach is offset by nearly 30 degrees to the runway requiring a turn to the right of 30 degrees when visual in order to line up to land on Runway 11 (106 degrees M). If not visual at the MDA of 820 (769') a curved missed approach to heading 180 is required.

The captain was PF. With landing flap selected the aircraft was stable on the localiser approaching the minima. At the minima of 820 feet and still in low cloud the aircraft was not visual and the PM called Go-around. The captain hesitated as if unable to make up his mind then applied GA thrust and started to climb. He forgot to call for Flap 15 and the PM called the omission and then selected Flap 15.

The aircraft had started to climb when suddenly the runway became visual. To the astonishment of the PM the captain announced "landing" and pushed the nose down. There were no other calls from the captain. The PM hurriedly selected landing Flap 40, and hoped for the best as things were beyond his immediate control. The flaps had not reached 40 when the aircraft landed hard well into the runway. With heavy braking and max reverse thrust it stopped before the end.
The PF, a senior check captain, gave no explanation for his change of mind.

The reason for telling this story is to highlight the risks of making a snap decision when after a go-around at a landing minima caused by poor visibility, a change of mind to revert to a landing could prove potentially fatal even if runway length is not an issue. Let alone pressing on with an unstable approach.

[LeFrenchKiwi]

Sorry if this has already been posted but saw this in the New Zealand AIP this morning

ENR 1.5 - 33

"4.17.6 If a missed approach is initiated prior to the specific missed approach point the pilot is required to track to the missed approach point and then follow the missed approach procedure. The missed approach point may be overflown above MDA."

Have to agree with other posters that have said climb straighto away. If you're going missed early, there's obviously a reason so get back to a safe height and fly the missed approach. You can always have another go at landing, no need to stay level hoping to go visual then try to salvage an approach you're probably now too high for.

[ga_trojan]

Virtually There, you are arguing two different points.

If you are on a IAP, in cloud and the Aid Fails/Lose Tolerance/Instrument Fails etc AND are below the MSA you have to start climbing as you cannot guarantee your terrain separation. You cannot continue at your last altitude as you have no idea where you are. Especially so in places that where you are below the hills. The extreme example would be Queenstown. Would you as PIC whilst doing an approach there and lose the tolerance required whilst below hills continue on at your last altitude?

Now if you commence the Missed Approach and then become visual, you can abandon the missed approach, take on your own terrain separation and fly visually around for a circuit or land on the runway. The Caveat being that you are visual and can maintain that.

They are two different concepts. You cannot stooge along in IMC without knowing where you are hoping to break visual. If anything CASA could nail you on the PIC requirement of being responsible for the safety of flight. If you are below the MSA without a Position fix you are endangering the safety of the aircraft.

[Derfred]

WTF? Have you ever done an instrument approach?

WTF? If aircraft didn't occasionally go out of tolerance on an approach, there would be no need for ENR 1.5 1.10.1.

WTF? Can you even read English?

Because if you could, WTF?, you would know that MA climb gradients are plotted from the MAPt, and that this whole thread concerns executing a missed approach prior to the MAPt.

You would also know, WTF?, that any time you break visual with the runway you can execute a landing within the circling area subject to ENR 1.5 1.10.1(c), to wit:

Do yourself a favor, pal, don't just jump into some thread you haven't taken the time to understand and start asserting your own illiteracy.

It's been spelled out under what circumstances it was proposed to level out, get back on track and fly to the MAPt before climbing - and it was a proposal, not a promotion. I asked if it was legal or not. And not you, nor any one else who has resorted to personal attacks instead of addressing the original question has provided any evidence to the contrary.

So save your sanctimony and back your argument up. Or not.

For someone who is complaining about others being rude, perhaps you need to look in the mirror.

Perhaps the negativity being experienced by yourself on this thread is purely due to the fact that most other IFR pilots find the very question incredulous.

You ignored the part of my post where I questioned whether this was a boring and irrelevant legal question, or a practical one. You seem to too-and-fro between the two.

While looking up ENR 1.5 1.10.1(c), look again at (a) and (b). You will never get to (c) because you have already commenced a missed approach due to (a) or (b) - according to your scenario. The only legal way you can subsequently make an approach is to discontinue the missed approach and make a visual approach (not the same thing) - the visual approach requirements are in a different section of the AIP which will depend upon day or night. The night requirements are more interesting and limiting. Perhaps legal but not advisable according to the many reasons provided on this thread.

[oggers]

PANSOPS Vol I

6.1.4 It is expected that the pilot will fly the missed approach procedure as published. If a missed approach is initiated before arriving at the missed approach point (MAPt), the pilot will normally proceed to the MAPt (or to the middle marker fix or specified DME distance for precision approach procedures) and then follow the missed approach procedure in order to remain within the protected airspace.
Note 1.— This does not preclude flying over the MAPt at an altitude/height greater than that required by the procedure.

The end.

[josephfeatherweight]

Note 1.— This does not preclude flying over the MAPt at an altitude/height greater than that required by the procedure.
And is usually a very f&cking good idea. The end, indeed!

[Virtually There]

For someone who is complaining about others being rude, perhaps you need to look in the mirror.
I'm quite comfortable with what I see. Perhaps you should look back at your initial interactions with me. Respect is a two-way street - as most here will know.

Perhaps the negativity being experienced by yourself on this thread is purely due to the fact that most other IFR pilots find the very question incredulous.
Just because you haven't heard or thought of something yourself, doesn't mean others haven't. Until recently, I had only ever interpreted the regs one way. There is nothing wrong with opening your mind to a different view, even if you do not agree with it. By the same token, that does not make you a proponent of it.

You ignored the part of my post where I questioned whether this was a boring and irrelevant legal question, or a practical one. You seem to too-and-fro between the two.
Not at all. You need to go back and re-read what I wrote. However, given your track record in this thread, one could be forgiven for wondering if reading comprehension is really your forte . . .

Of course, you don't have to read anything I have written, but you don't look too flash when you start rebutting points that were never made (climb gradient), or were already addressed (see below).

While looking up ENR 1.5 1.10.1(c), look again at (a) and (b). You will never get to (c) because you have already commenced a missed approach due to (a) or (b) - according to your scenario. The only legal way you can subsequently make an approach is to discontinue the missed approach and make a visual approach (not the same thing) - the visual approach requirements are in a different section of the AIP which will depend upon day or night. The night requirements are more interesting and limiting. Perhaps legal but not advisable according to the many reasons provided on this thread.
Again, 1.10.1 (c) refers to visual reference not being established at or before the MAPt.

If you are required to execute a missed approach before the MAPt under (a), then the whole premise of the argument is you are legally entitled to conduct a circling approach if you suddenly break visual and satisfy the circling procedure requirements.

In one of my examples, you could be 5nm out on an RNAV at the FAF when you go out of tolerance and are required to execute a missed approach - which, incidentally, commences at the MAPt. If you happen to break visual before reaching the MAPt, and you are within the circling area, and you maintain visual reference to the runway, and are clear of cloud and obstacles etc, etc, you are now conducting a (visual) circling approach and do not need to continue tracking to the MAPt to conduct the MA.

If you disagree with the above interpretation of the regs, all good and well. But at least now we are (hopefully) on the same page.

[Virtually There]

PANSOPS Vol I

6.1.4 It is expected that the pilot will fly the missed approach procedure as published. If a missed approach is initiated before arriving at the missed approach point (MAPt), the pilot will normally proceed to the MAPt (or to the middle marker fix or specified DME distance for precision approach procedures) and then follow the missed approach procedure in order to remain within the protected airspace.
Note 1.— This does not preclude flying over the MAPt at an altitude/height greater than that required by the procedure.The end.
I'm happy to leave it at that.

[Chronic Snoozer]

In one of my examples, you could be 5nm out on an RNAV at the FAF when you go out of tolerance and are required to execute a missed approach - which, incidentally, commences at the MAPt. If you happen to break visual before reaching the MAPt, and you are within the circling area, and you maintain visual reference to the runway, and are clear of cloud and obstacles etc, etc, you are now conducting a (visual) circling approach and do not need to continue tracking to the MAPt to conduct the MA.

No. Just no. You can't be a little bit pregnant.