Missed approaches... Tracks or Headings

[ZEEBEE]

Here to learn

Guard

I appreciate your response and I guess the thread has dragged on a bit.
That's the problem isn't it, it's easy to miss an important point if you have to trawl through a bunch of guff.
However, these are open forums and nobody has it right all the time.
Criticism is the great leveller as long as it is kept impersonal, I'm as open to it as anyone. (Except maybe FTDK)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Criticism is the great leveller as long as it is kept impersonal, I'm as open to it as anyone. (Except maybe FTDK)

Geez, Zeebee! That's a bit unfair.

I'll have you know it has taken me 23 renewals to achieve perfection!

Dr

[OzExpat]

I don't know about now, but in 1969 during my time with DCA in Melbourne as an Airways Surveyor, the IAL chart designer told us that headings were used in most missed approach procedures (rather than headings to make good a track) because it was convential wisdom at the time that the pilot was busy enough and stressed enough ( assuming it was a weather related missed approach and not merely simulated instrument flight), that a heading was far better than worrying about drift angles. Thus the published headings in pertinent IAL charts already had a terrain safety tolerance as part of the design.

Yes, that was the fact in those days but it assumed an area of benign terrain and that the time used in the missed approach was comparitively short. Thus, the residual risk was considered to be minimal. It was also the case that the protection areas were more conservative in those times and this would also have helped to keep the aircraft fairly safe.

It did, however, result in minimum altitudes that were quite high, because of all the obstacles that were encompassed by the broad protection areas.

Pans Ops has undergone many changes since then, with protection areas being reduced and refined. I can only guess that this meant there was less protection for the missed approach segment and this, in turn, may have led to the requirement for making good some sort of track. I don't know for sure about that because I didn't start designing procedures until 1984, at the tail-end of the then old Pans Ops criteria from 1977.

I don't know if any of the "old-timers" in procedure design are still around, to give us any better idea but, pending comments from them, my guess is probably as good as anyone elses.

[oxi]

OzExpat thanks for that, this is basicaly what i'm trying to get across that in the case a Heading is refered to automaticaly we are straight onto it no questions asked. (A broard range of protection is accounted for).

If track is refered to its a case of work to establish yourself outbound on whatever that may be. (Perhaps in the event of obstacles, or a lower MDA).

I think the key is the words alone, why some guys are intent to prattle on about definitions blows me away (and reference to the GPS). Yes the true meaning is a Heading adjusted to maintain a Track but in the efforts of trying to keep it simple for missed approach directions i feel it would be a better method of getting it across.

I think its a much simpler approach to the wording as we can all see this has prompted a whole a huge amount of conversation from a wide variety of pilots but not with any obvious outcome in my opinion.

[TinKicker]

Straight from the Horses Mouth....so to speak...

Ok Guys,

here it is direct from the source document.....

ICAO Doc 8168 OPS/611 - Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS-OPS) Volume 1 - Flight Procedures - Chapter 1 General Information

"1.1.3 All procedures depict tracks. Pilots should attempt to maintain the track by applying corrections to heading for known wind." p. I-2-1-1 dated 23/11/2006


Over....and out


Tinkicker

[ZEEBEE]

ICAO Doc 8168 OPS/611 - Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS-OPS) Volume 1 - Flight Procedures - Chapter 1 General Information

"1.1.3 All procedures depict tracks. Pilots should attempt to maintain the track by applying corrections to heading for known wind." p. I-2-1-1 dated 23/11/2006

Says it all doesn't it

Nice to see the actual reference. I guess if it had turned up sooner, it would have been put to bed.

I suspect Oxi, that this thread has expired, but not without some interesting revelations.

[insertnamehere]

was that the world's biggest wind-up? (so to speak)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Good onya Tinkicker!

62 posts later, ya confirmed what me old mate BC wrote in the 4th post!

Dr

[NAMPS]

This thread is hilarious!

[TinKicker]

Hi FTDK,

I would have jumped in much sooner but I have been on the road and away from the documents.......surely you must have had some amusement reading the replies to what should have been an easy answer....like you say BC got it right inside 5 posts!!!

Tinkicker

[ZEEBEE]

I thought this thread should have died ages ago, but since everyone seems to resuscitate it, who am I to argue?

Yes BC got it right early in the post, as have others, BUT it was tinkicker who provided the definitive reference.

Til then it was mostly a matter of opinion.

ya gotta have the reference!

[obie2]

So, now that you've all decided that you will follow a Track after a missed approach and not a Heading...

what are you going to base your Track on?

Correct answer goes to the top of the class!

[amos2]

Nobody seems to want to answer, so I will...

From the MAP!

QED

[kalavo]

Pan ops already told us - applying corrections for known wind.

[amos2]

So why didn't you answer the question then?