Go Around Not Below XXX feet

[Hansard]

At the risk of revealing myself as the one who keeps getting it wrong............................three times recently at different airports in the Midlands/East Anglia, I've been given a "Go Around not below XXX feet" instruction at the end of an instrument approach.

First time, it didn't even cross my mind that the ATCO meant height as opposed to altitude.

Second time I queried it and the ATCO helpfully recalculated it for me, based on QNH

Third time, I was at the end of an NDB approach with an Circling Minimum of 800' Alt, so when the ATCO said "go around not below 800', report breaking left", I circled to land at 800' QNH........and got a bo*****ing for flying a low level circuit.

Am I missing some rule that says all such instructions are based on QFE?

If 99% of pilots fly instrument approaches on QNH, why are these figures given in height?

Help me get it right please!

[almost professional]

only give that instruction when there is a vehicle/obstruction on the runway-and I always make sure the pilot understands it is the minimum height I want him above the runway itself, even if it means explaining in 'longhand' to ensure no chance of misinterpretation

[av8boy]

Becomes more clear when you hear the instruction "Go around, at or above 500" when you're at Denver, etc...



Hey Almost... your real name Malakai?

[Chilli Monster]

As someone who works at an airfield where a lot of the approaches are training, most of which are QNH but some are QFE, would it not be sensible to give the instruction based on the datum the aircraft is flying on (400ft if QFE, 400 + Afld elevation if QNH). Better service to the pilot, with less chance of misunderstanding. I do it as a matter of course and never had anything said against it, I suspect a lot of others do too. Maybe something that should be included as good practice in MATS pt.1 ?

[Squadgy]

Just out of interest, obviously this type of clearance is used where an ac or vehicle is blocking the runway whilst the Go-Around is in progress, so the go-around traffic dosen't get too close, but in the unlikely event of a power failiure at or before the Go-Around isn't the ac on approach likely to want to land on the runway?? I can see that it can be expeditious to have the runway blocked during a go-around, but do ATCOs see it as being ideal?

[Chilli Monster]

but in the unlikely event of a power failiure at or before the Go-Around isn't the ac on approach likely to want to land on the runway?? I can see that it can be expeditious to have the runway blocked during a go-around, but do ATCOs see it as being ideal?

.
You're right, it's not ideal, but there can be many reasons for it. Bird scaring in progress and they're particularly stubborn. Possibly maintenance - you have the opportunity to replace lights which you can't do when traffic needs to land.

So - do you ban all approaches - no. The income is valuable to the airfield, (especially if nobody actually needs to land) and the training is valuable to the aircraft operator (there are less and less airfields becoming available for training due to commercial, scheduled pressure these days).

The fact that the restriction has been put on just means you need to be aware that if you lose a donk (or two) then you may have to consider the sides of the runway as opposed to the centre, or that the full length may not be available in the ensuing emergency. (Even if the runway is 9000ft long and the Work in Progress is in the last few hundred feet you still have to put on the restriction).

One thing worth mentioning here is it doesn't stop you coming down to Decision Height if the approach is precision (ILS). It means you cannot overfly the runway below the height specified. The two are seperate entities in most cases.

[TC_LTN]

I may well be wrong but without checking the book shouldn't all clearances in relation to level always include the words 'altitude' 'height' or 'flight level'? Luton, being 500ft nearer God, suffers from this problem and I always say "not below height 400ft" since altitude 400ft feet would be a little embarrassing for all concerned

[Chilli Monster]

I may well be wrong but without checking the book shouldn't all clearances in relation to level always include the words 'altitude' 'height' or 'flight level'?

Not wrong - perfectly right. The fact that this unit is missing that vital word out is cause for concern. At least I know it aint mine

[Hansard]

Chili

Three separate units and not one specified height or altitude

TC_LTN

My second example was a tad embarrassing because the GA executed on altitude took me too close to the ground for comfort. I should have realised that the GA figure was height, bearing in mind the AD elevation but, in my defence, there isn't much brain capacity left when you're single pilot IFR at the end of an instrument approach. In this case, I was an IR student "under the screens" so there weren't going to be any visual clues and I had the safeguard of an Instructor in the RHS.

[This is a crisis]

There is specific phraseology in Mats 1 to cover this:

"Cleared low approach and go around runway xx not below 400 feet above threshold elevation"

Used to use it all the time with training aircraft making approaches and schedules to depart - get them lined up and shoot them off as soon as convenient. Not so keen these days for the reasons someone has already mentioned i.e. aircraft suddenly deciding he has a problem and wants to land.

[FWA NATCA]

In the U.S you will hear, cleared low approach at or above 500 agl (or the controller may say what the MSL equivilant would be) and the reason. I have also used execute go around at the light line, or short final, when I don't want the aircraft to do a touch and go or fly low level down the runway.

The go around not below xxx feet sounds confusing.

Mike
NATCA FWA

[ILS 119.5]

Where does the 400' rule come from? What would you do if you were not cleared for a low approach and go around?

[AC2]

It's in CAP493/MATS Part1/para19.

Cheers!

Sorry - MATS Part 1, Sect 2, Ch 1, Para 19.

( Boring, init!)

[tori chelli]

ILS 119.5

I believe the 400ft phrase came in after a Stansted incident in the 80's when an A/c going-around ('overshooting' in those days!) came close to a high tail and the regulator came in with what appeared at the time to be a figure 'plucked out of the air'.

It has always seemed to me that, notwithstanding the exemption for practise approaches at licensed aerodromes in sub-para (4) (a) , 400ft flies in the face of the Rule 5 '500ft rule', especially when you have runways (structure) pilots (people) or aircraft (vessels) below you.

Surely we should at least be using 500ft like the USA?

As to what you're 'cleared for' , surely before the FAF you will need to have said either descend on the ILS or cleared for a (procedure) approach and if the 400ft phrase has not been used, the pilot is entitled to come down to DA(H) / MDA(H) and go-around

[AC2]

500' rule does not apply while landing or taking off

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/DAP_EIS02.pdf

[vintage ATCO]

tori chelli

The 400ft rule came about following an incident at Bedford Thurleigh when, I think, an overshooting Trident hit the tail of a Comet that was lined up. Must have been in the 70s I would think.

[Turn It Off]

Mats Part 1 Appendix E

" Cleared Low approch Runway (designation) not below (number) feet above threshold elevation (go around intructions, If applicable)"

or

" Cleared low pass runway (designation) not below (number feet)" <-------- Not one i have heard yet!

The correct phraeology says that threshold elevation should be stated ( as mentioned in a previous post ).

I personally also add on the end QFE XXXX, its a compulsory read back, and it gives the pilot a clue that they are flying on a different pressure setting also. Then it makes sure that both ATC and Pilots know what datum you are using.

Do pilots keep a note handy of the QFE on their kneeboards when in the later stages of approach in case they go around? - I doubt it, and am sure even if they did, they probably find it easier if someone tells them what it is so they can twiddle with knobs ( careful on the jokes ) and keep looking where they are going at the same time!

Pilots maybe some feedback on that would be useful?


Regards


Turn It Off

[Chilli Monster]

Do pilots keep a note handy of the QFE on their kneeboards when in the later stages of approach in case they go around? - I doubt it,

No - because missed approach procedures are normally with reference to QNH

That's one of the reasons that the approach is flown with reference to QNH, with all references being to DA/MDA - not DH/MDH. The UK is one of the few (the only?) countries in the world where we still use QFE as a common use altimeter setting. Although most PPL's / a few AOC operators will use QFE as the final datum most wil use QNH because that's what you use everywhere else.

So - with this in mind the phraseology ..........."Go around not below (elevation+400ft)" would be a damn sight more useful than "Go around not below 400ft above runway threshold" because that throws in another calculation the pilot has to do, probably close to decision. Take into account also that this is probably being done not for real, but whilst the pilot is undergoing training / test, knowing full well that the instructor is about to fail an engine on him, and you see that the environment is set up for a mistake to happen.

We are after all providing a service - is it not incumbent upon us to make the service better and more 'user-friendly' when possible.

(And for the die hard QFE boys out there - I've just come back from the states. Big Bear at 6748ft, Las Vegas McCarren at 2181ft. Try setting QFE there )

[tori chelli]

stand corrected

Thanks VA...often wondered. Of course you've been around longer than I have

Tori

[Honey Monster]

Vintage ATCO is indeed correct. The tower controller that day ended up in a senior position in SRG

Another Bedford ATCO was in the Comet at the time.