Yes, a good point and certainly worth considering.

A Citation 560 with original Honeywell Primus avionics and FMS. The approach plate only calls for "RNAV 1" capability (because otherwise one could probably not fly to LORNI and hold there). So I guess that differently from what I wrote above our FMS will not have CLM as single fix of the missed approach procedure but LORNI.

Interesting though that if you look at the VOR approach the missed approach instructions are:MISSED APCH: Climb on R-248 inbound to BT VOR. At BT VOR turn RIGHT to intercept and follow R-110 BT to CLM VOR climbing to 3000', or as directed. MAX 185 KT. Climb to 1100' prior to level acceleration.

i.e start climbing immediately from the MDA of 590'. There is no mention of the 21D CLM as a climb restraint.

Interesting. Thanks.

I didn't say briefing the MAP was a waste of time and it has to be done - but when in a very large percentage of cases ATC tell you to fly a MAP a simple as 'straight ahead to 3000' all that has precede that is wasted.

Each airport's preferred policy on MAP - either 'expect to fly as per the published' or ' MAP will be passed by ATC' could be stated on the plate.

FWIW, I have come across a few colleagues who had to fly the MAP from runway 07 and were denied vectors, they had to follow the published procedure. I do not remember whether they actually descended or not or whether they went around from below 700ft MSL.

Had a W/S at around 500ft RW27 - got it in hand and levelled at 1.000ft - problem came when they tried to vector us, without passing an amended altitude. We had not yet passed D1.0 from BT, so were still level at 1.000. Politely asked if that was the ATCO's intention - followed by a very agitated instruction to climb to altitude 3.000ft. ;-)

So they get caught out by it, too - worth remembering that ATCOs are human too and are just as 'sprung' as we are by an unexpected missed approach.

How do yo do an approach to the minima if you find it dangerous to descend to 700 feet?

How on Earth could anyone argue that it's even remotely safe to fly for 21 miles at 700ft (at one point 480ft AGL), potentially in IMC with no autopilot? That's madness.

Errr - cos they're not? D21 CLM is approximately 2 miles from Le Bourget, probaly three from the MAPt.

Going around means climbing to a safe altitude as quickly as possible. 480ft AGL are not safe.

Does it, really?

Do you mean that if you are on a go around you are allowed to disregard procedures, altitude restrictions, published track, potentially cause conflicts with other aircraft, maybe causing other to go arounds or take evasive actions?

Do you consider a go around an emergency?

Hello!

No, but I (as probably many others as well) are usually better prepaired for an emergency than for a two-engines operational go-around. The emergencies get trained hands-on twice per year in the simulator and/or on checkrides in the plane. A real go-around ocuurs (in my typical flying) once every two or three years only. If, statistically, I am handling pilot every second time that means that I fly a real go-around once every five years. So these procedures should be designed as safe as possible because few pilots are really current in actually flying them.

You do it your way, I do it my way. I will NOT descend during a missed approach in IMC, it's not going to happen. I will maintain my last altitude, but that's it.

i don’t see the big deal in descending. You mention the challenge posed by a 2 engines G/A. That’s ok but in this case that’s not what you would do.

Nicely established on the ILS, if high enough, you would set 700’, deselect the G/S ( and use V/S ? ) until the altitude is captured. Not rush, no full thrust, just a continuation of what you were doing. Then as you have the alt captured, increase thrust ( no requirement to go full TOGA ), flaps L, gear and the appropriate lateral mode.

Disregarding a published procedure in a non emergency situation is quite troubling.

If you are not sure how to do this safely, perhaps you could ask to practice it during your next sim session. Probably more useful than doing the usual box ticking profile in my view.

95% of the times this would be a discontinued approach flown from above missed approach altitude, NOT a go around.
No need for go around thrust. Select the appropriate vs, descent to 700 and fly the procedure, no big deal if properly briefed.
Extend the centerline and you’ll see what can happen if you dont stick to the procedure with cdg on eastern configuration as well.

I could potentially see the problem with a balked landing on two engines, but again, an average pilot with a proper briefing should be able to deal with it without sweating too much.

You are not supposed to fly close to the ground without seeing it Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority,(SERA 5015)
I assume that a published procedure is such and authority, but yes it's tricky to level off and fly without an autopilot, at 500ft AGL, while fidgeting with the FMS to activate the go around procedure, and without the ground in sight. At each sim session I practice it again and again, with an unnoticed engine failure while descending it's even better.