The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Missed Approach - when to climb?

Old 13th Sep 2017, 02:52
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 890
The regs are normally written for the lowest common denominator.

I feel we have just reached a new low.

Standby for more regs.
Derfred is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 02:56
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,690
Originally Posted by ga_trojan View Post
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.
AerocatS2A is online now  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 04:15
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by thefeatheredone View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Car RAMROD View Post
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.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 04:51
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post
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.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 05:03
  #45 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
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.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 05:22
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 322
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.
ad-astra is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 05:28
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 21
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".
thefeatheredone is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 05:35
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post
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!)
Water Wings is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 06:03
  #49 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
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 is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 06:06
  #50 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by Water Wings View Post
You want a legal take? Have a think for a moment about tort law, a duty of care and negligence (assuming you live!)
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?
Virtually There is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 06:23
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
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.
ga_trojan is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 06:27
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 21
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.
thefeatheredone is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 06:41
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,690
Originally Posted by ga_trojan View Post
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.
AerocatS2A is online now  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 06:59
  #54 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by thefeatheredone View Post
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.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 08:08
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,690
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post
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.
AerocatS2A is online now  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 08:41
  #56 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
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.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 09:41
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 556
Originally Posted by ga_trojan View Post
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.
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 10:22
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: YHOT
Posts: 40
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.



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.
DynamicStall is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 10:46
  #59 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by Trent 972 View Post
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.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 11:44
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
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.
ga_trojan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.