Missed approaches... Tracks or Headings

[oxi]

Just a thought what do you all reckon?

In the case of missed approaches and inparticular off an NDB, why when it is expressed in terms of "Track" does it not refer to interception of an outbound radial when the real definition of the actual direction of the missed approach is a Heading.

For me if I know that if I am directed to maintain a heading then the charted obstacles below are well away no matter what the wind is doing.

BUT!

If reference is made to a "Track" then I'm to intercept a radial... no doubt because there is something worth worrying about below.

If you have a look at the Scone missed approach off the NDB its very clear "track to intercept 355 from the NDB"...... great easy! This puts you up the valley.

If you have a look at Richmond NSW "turn right track 020", so would I work harder to get on the actual 020 outbound? Which is a huge intercept.

And then look at the Wollongong "turn left track 080", look at the diagram there is no way you will end up intercepting the radial!

The majority of NDB missed approaches are easy as the missed approach is a continuation of the final approach such as Roma 014 in, 014 out easy the word "Track" works with that.

All I am trying to get at is that in the middle of the night when I never been to some of these place's the wording means alot..

"Heading" all cool the possible wind is accounted for and where I may end up because of it....all good.

"Track" chase the outbound radial.


I am very interested to hear your comments.

[alexthepilot]

mate when is just says 'Track ***' this means once you commence the MAP use a heading to give you that track, this doesn't mean intercept a track from the NDB/VOR of *** . As you said some do say 'Track to intercept' but others don't, why it says that i dont know maybe it is because some are more terrain criticle and require you to be more accurate while some aren't so critical and and a round track figure can be use'd.

[FullySickBro]

OK I'll have a stab at this one.

Firstly radials refer to VOR. Bearings refer to NDBs.

When you track a bearing off an NDB (whether to or from) you are adjusting for the wind component i.e. holding drift to account for wind and maintain a constant bearing.

Headings are just that- hold a constant magnetic heading and the wind will decide the track over the ground e.g. heading 090 wind is a stiff southerly then your track would be say 078...

So if Wol missed approach says track to intercept 080 then my interpretation is to intercept bearing 080 from the Wol NDB.

Think you might have a couple of definitions mixed up there oxi but having said that I have had a couple of pre dinner drinks so someone more suitably qualified (and sober) might correct me

[BrokenConrod]

Hey come on here! Have standards really deteriorated to this level?

If it says "track" it means track! That does not mean take up a heading, it means that you should use all of your knowledge and skills to make a serious attempt to maintain the required track by laying off appropriate drift.

If they want you to intercept a particular track with reference to the VOR or NDB, the chart will say so.

If they wanted you to just take up a heading and disregard drift, THE CHART WOULD SAY SO !

.....or so it was hammered into me by the highly experienced ATO who did my IR!

BC

[Dragun]

Had this one out with CASA a few years ago. Unless the pictorial represention actually depicts turning to intercept the track reference the navaid (which some do) then you just turn onto the heading that would give you track in nil wind and adjust heading as necessary to maintain that track. No need to intercept bearings or radials.

Checks PANS OPS in the CAAP for more information.

[Wing Root]

I knew I'd seen this before....

IFR: Missed approach tracking requirements

[harrowing]

Broken Conrod
Well said and to the point.

[Arm out the window]

Furthermore, in the AIP blurb it says that IAP are to be flown with allowance for wind to make good the tracks published in the plates, or something to that effect.
For a non-'bearing intercept and then track' missed approach in nil wind that obviously means fly the published headings, otherwise set a heading according to what the wind's doing.

[ZEEBEE]

If it says "track" it means track! That does not mean take up a heading, it means that you should use all of your knowledge and skills to make a serious attempt to maintain the required track by laying off appropriate drift.

The few dozen NDB missed approaches I've done (most in training or renewals) I've always taken up a heading that ought to have resulted in a reasonable track from the wind as determined during the approach, and no instructor/examiner ever criticized me for it.

However, in reality you can't establish an accurate track UNLESS you intercept an outbound bearing from the NDB. If the heading is approximated (without calculating it first), one would have hoped that there's enough slop in the MA procedure to accept the error in tracking that could occur.

In a strong wind, that could be substantial. There are a couple in PNG that can take your breath away if you get it wrong.

[OzExpat]

In a strong wind, that could be substantial. There are a couple in PNG that can take your breath away if you get it wrong.

Hello ZEEBEE, in the PNG context, I'm sure you think about the general impact of a "strong wind" on the local weather. Short of a tropical cyclone, the impact is likely to be positive rather than negative and, in that instance, are you REALLY going to fly a non-precision approach for anything other than recency?

Finally, would you care to give us all an example of one, or more, of those "take your breath away" procedures that I've designed for PNG?

[oxi]

Thanks everyone for your imput, Zeebee pretty much has it for my money

If the missed approach is refered to as a Track this should always mean to intercept a bearing or radial out-bound then we all know that we are sweet.

So a Track in IFR can only refer to the particular nav aid, reference to a track over the ground is crazy! (ain't that VFR stuff).


However if the missed approach mearly refers to a Heading then immediatly we can assume that holding whatever *** that maybe will cause us no grief what so ever in the case of winds etc.


I think it should be that simple.

Of course during the entrie approach we reference the navaid for track maintenance and its only on the out-bound during a holding we can only approximate for wind effects, but given the safety of altituide in the holding pattern it isn't a problem.

The missed approach is very different and I believe this simple wording change important.

Track.....chase the needle.
Bearing...Hold the bug.



.....All agree?????

[GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn]

Track.....chase the needle. Bearing...Hold the bug.

NO !

Track = make good a track (not necessarily in relation to an NDB bearing or VOR radial) ie make some provision for drift if applicable!
Heading = fly a heading ie dont make provision for drift!

Geeeeeeeez!
GG

[Capt Wally]

I think some here are missing the point. If it says missed appr is trk *** then you maneuver to make good that track. But remember you may not always have that aid to track off as a back bearing etc. What if it failed (or yr equip) & you flew by DR to the MAP then tracked via the MAP trk?
These types of approaches have been surveyed to cover a huge area of intolerance, the +/- 5 deg's is what we ought to strive for but it's not possible with a failed aid for Eg. hence it's actually not that critical.


CW

[Dragun]

Read PANS OPS! The international criteria by which each approach is designed! Judging by a lot of the responses in here I'd say a lot of people have never even heard of them, let alone read them. No guessing required. You'll find all aspects of the approach (entry, holding, tracking, missed approach) are designed with up to 50kts of wind. That allows for a good deal of error.

[GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn]

If you're outbound in the holding pattern associated with an NDB, should you be flying a heading or a track? Obviously you are NOT flying directly away from the aid on a defined bearing.

Read the book - but don't ask me for the reference - its been too long!

GG

[ZEEBEE]

Finally, would you care to give us all an example of one, or more, of those "take your breath away" procedures that I've designed for PNG?

No criticism of your approaches Oz It's just that after doing half the NDB's in Australia, going to PNG and expecting to do the same makes you realise that it's for keeps.

It's been a while but Guerney would be one that I would classify such. Looking at the whole approach, the need to maintain the tracking tolerances down the valley makes you wish that you'd done more serious NDB's or paid better attention to Aminta when she said that "your life is on the line"

[ZEEBEE]

Track = make good a track (not necessarily in relation to an NDB bearing or VOR radial) ie make some provision for drift if applicable!

Yes, but in IMC with only an NDB as a reference, how do you KNOW that you are maintaining the specified track ?

Yes, you can offset for drift, but if you get it wrong, you will NOT make good that track and you won't KNOW until you hit the tower.

OK, worst case, but in cloud I WANT to know that my trrack is what it says.

[GoDsGiFtToAvIaTiOn]

ZEEBEE, we are talking missed approaches here which means that you have flown the approach or at least part of it. That being the case you should have a reasonable idea of the wind and make a fair shot at allowing for appropriate drift.

If not - maybe you would be better off staying out of IMC!

The design of the approaches is such that the slop in the system is accounted for!

GG

[Dragun]

Godsgift - agreed.


Zeebee

It's the same as when you fly IFR in cloud and you're allowed to go outside the rated coverage of navaids with allowances for +/-9degrees track error as long as you get a fix every 2 hours. It's called dead reckoning.

Even if the wind is 50kts and you hold heading as track you will be fine. Now if you hold drift as well (as you're supposed to) you're even more fine. That's the way it is.

On top of that, GPS' have a tracking reference (and most IFR aircraft these days have a GPS) - all you have to do is adjust your heading until the tracking says what you want it to. Then you're holding perfect drift. Too easy.

[OzExpat]

You'll find all aspects of the approach (entry, holding, tracking, missed approach) are designed with up to 50kts of wind. That allows for a good deal of error.

Not necessarily true for the missed approach, Dragun, particularly if a turn is required at low level. In any event, I had an idea that the concept of a track in the missed approach is explained in the AIP. Judging by the way this discussion started and seems to generally have continued, perhaps it's no longer detailed in the AIP?

Captain Wally is right - the missed approach might be needed at that most critical of all positions in the approach (ie approaching the MAPt), when either the navaid fails, or your receiver fails. This is what is intended by use of the word "track" when not accompanied by a reference to the navaid.