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, 19:05
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 325
Might I suggest that this is a windup or a thread that realy did not have any substance save for the attention seeking.
If the young man or woman who is defending this thought process so passionately ( but does not agree with it) tries the same on an Examiner or Check Captain then the issue will be resolved.
If he or she flys a approach and missed approach in this manner then the issue may very well be resolved.

Let's hope the Examiner/Check Captain is first.

Either way nature will take it's course!
ad-astra is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2017, 21:09
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,759
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post
There's a difference between arguing a point and aligning yourself with it. Lawyers do it all the time. I'm not a lawyer.
Lawyers are paid to represent a client.

Other people who argue points they don't align with are internet trolls.

I'm not sure which I'd rather be compared to.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 00:34
  #63 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by ad-astra View Post
Might I suggest that this is a windup or a thread that realy did not have any substance save for the attention seeking.
If the young man or woman who is defending this thought process so passionately ( but does not agree with it) tries the same on an Examiner or Check Captain then the issue will be resolved.
If he or she flys a approach and missed approach in this manner then the issue may very well be resolved.

Let's hope the Examiner/Check Captain is first.

Either way nature will take it's course!
That's a very interesting suggestion. Because it alludes to one of only two possibilities: that I discovered and applied this legal loophole all by myself . . . or that it was suggested to me by an ATO and a number of other instructors.

Take your pick. If it's the former, I sure would love the attention . . .

If it's the latter, well, not even you have offered a legal argument against the practice. So there would really be no grounds for a failed IPC, would there? Prove otherwise. Oh, you can't.

Well, I guess if you can't argue the simple facts, you can always attack me personally . . .

Originally Posted by AerocatS2A View Post
Originally Posted by Virtually There
There's a difference between arguing a point and aligning yourself with it. Lawyers do it all the time. I'm not a lawyer.
Lawyers are paid to represent a client.

Other people who argue points they don't align with are internet trolls.

I'm not sure which I'd rather be compared to.
Because ad hominems are an incomparable form of argument - is that what you're trying to say?
Virtually There is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 00:48
  #64 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by ga_trojan View Post
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.
Completely in agreement.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 00:54
  #65 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by dehg5776 View Post
Your scenario is based upon losing an aid, or being out of tolerance, yet you insist on flying to a missed approach point, at the MDA and below the MSA, prior to going around.

How do you know where the MAPt is when you have lost all reference to it?
Ask CASA. AIP ENR 1.5 1.10.2 clearly says "fly to the MAPt", but it doesn't say how. 1.11.1(c) suggests dead reckoning, but not in relation to 1.10.2.

It wasn't suggested to fly down to the MDA, but simply to level off, thus discontinuing the approach, and climbing at the MAPt. The scenario is in relation to flying out of tolerance and being required to execute a missed approach in accordance with the regs. In reality, you may be out of half-scale, but you could still get back on track to fly to the MAPt. Such a maneouvre would keep you in line with the glidepath above MDA until you reached the MAPt.

The question is, what happens in that brief moment when you fall out of tolerance (and by how much)? Again, the argument is the glide slope takes this into account, offering protection not only along the path, but just outside it - obviously up to a point - because it is common for aircraft to fly outside those tolerances on approaches.

Last edited by Virtually There; 14th Sep 2017 at 01:06.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 01:37
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,759
Any tolerances are not to be used intentionally though. See for instance en route tracking. You are not permitted to use en-route tracking tolerances to make minor deviations around weather.

Your authority to be below the MSA relies on you being within tracking tolerance for the approach. If you are outside the tolerance for the approach then you have lost ALL authority to be below the MSA. At this point your altitude is illegal and you must do what you can to make it legal again i.e. climb.

For these people who are proposing doing this, under exactly what circumstances do they imagine it happening? How much fuel do they have? What type of aircraft are they flying? Why don't they just do another approach or fly to an alternate? Why would they even consider turning an already screwed up approach (out of tolerance) into an even more screwed up approach (out of tolerance and intentionally remaining below the MSA)?

It wasn't suggested to fly down to the MDA, but simply to level off, thus discontinuing the approach, and climbing at the MAPt.
If they are "hoping to get visual" then they haven't discontinued the approach have they? You don't "hope to get visual" during the missed approach.

I think that if you really aren't advocating for this personally, rather than "just asking questions" on the internet you should do some real research yourself and ask someone, i.e., CASA, with the authority to give you an answer that you won't repeatedly close your ears to.

Or just ask your self this,

"I have flown out of tolerance on an approach and decided to maintain altitude rather than climb. Subsequently I hit an obstacle that I didn't know was there, oops! Miraculously I survive but some passengers die (oh noes I didn't think that would happen!) How would a court view my action of intentionally remaining below the safe altitude for the position my aircraft was in?"
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 01:57
  #67 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
The circumstances in my last post are what they are referring to. The grey area is obviously that you can still legally land whilst executing a missed approach if you break visual and are in a position to conduct a visual approach.

If you go back to my very first post, I asked a legitimate question: when must you legally start to climb in a missed approach if you execute it prior to the MAPt? There was clearly a reason I asked the question, and I stated as such. I went on to expand upon the reasons and scenarios for asking that question. I even suggested (in my first post) that if you were off track you could very well hit an obstacle.

I believed I had covered most bases and was entitled to ask the question of my fellow commercial pilots. But like a lot of prune threads, it quickly degenerated into chest-thumping and name-calling without actually addressing the original question.

I expected that. And here we are. I have done the research in as far as reading the regs - I did that even before I posted here. Which was why I asked - in my very first post - was there something I had missed.

The answer, as it turned out, is no. Yes, I can ask CASA, but we've all asked CASA questions before and received answers that confused the issue even more than when it was first proposed!

In a real-life scenario - such as the last one I posted - a GPS goes down to .1nm, or 185m. Half-scale deflection is about 90m. You could be 100m off centre-line at 5nm out and have to execute a missed approach. The reality is, you're probably not going to hit any obstacles if you level off and reintercept your track enroute to the MAPt. If you happen to break visual - all good and well. But do you legally need to climb before the MAPt? It appears not.

While I do not advocate the above, I can see the reasoning behind it. I've tried to explore that here - for anyone who was interested. But some posters here appear to be more interested in attacking the poster than properly considering what has been put forth.

Why is that? Human nature, I guess.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 02:32
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,759
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post

Why is that? Human nature, I guess.
No, it's because we just can't believe the question would be asked.

As I said earlier, be very wary of someone trying to find legal loopholes that allows them to do something stupid (not you obviously as you are just asking the question rather than advocating for it). It is akin to someone deciding that the road rules don't apply if you are not on the road and therefore it is not technically illegal to drive at 200 kph down the highway if you stay just off the shoulder of the road.

Look, it is quite possible that there is nothing in the regs that specifically states you must commence the climb immediately (although there are parts that strongly imply that this is expected), but there is more to the law than just the literal interpretation of the words. There are such things as the spirit of a law and also more general concepts such as acting negligently or recklessly.

If you really do fly an approach and get a little out of tolerance, rather than applying the concept of flying the missed approach but not climbing and hoping to get back on track and break visual, why not apply the concept of sustained errors? If you are briefly out of tolerance and fix it promptly then you may have justification for continuing the approach. I would advocate for going around though. When an approach is a general mess it's best to just try it all again, right from the start, and do it properly.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 02:44
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,759
Originally Posted by Jepp 4.10.5
A published missed approach procedure must not be flown unless commenced at the MAP. If a missed approach climb is initiated before the MAP, the aircraft must track to the MAP before commencing the missed approach procedure.
Not sure if you are aware, but the Jeppesen version of the AIP is basically cut and pasted from the AIP. The above is the electronic Jepp reference, I don't know the AIP reference, it will be there though.

The position you are putting forward seems to hinge on the concept that the missed approach procedure does not start until the MAP and as the climb is part of the procedure, then the climb doesn't start until the MAP either.

The above paragraph disproves this theory.

The first part of the paragraph states that the procedure must start at the MAP. The second part allows for situations where the climb has commenced prior to the MAP. It follows then that the phrase "missed approach procedure" refers only to the tracking of the procedure and not the climb. Otherwise an early climb would not be permitted.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 02:53
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
This whole thread is embarrassing......
KZ Kiwi is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 04:50
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 448
VT, if your mates were doing the 15 ILS to CNS, and decided to go missed at say, 700ft, for whatever reason (be it out of tolerance or u/s navaid) would they really not climb until reaching the 15 DME arc; long after they have tracked to the MAPT and commenced the turn?

If you are tacking the missed approach instructions absolutely literally in the order it's written, that's what they would be doing. Please ask them if they think it's logical, and safe. If they think so, well, that's just insane I'm sorry.
Car RAMROD is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 05:11
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by Virtually There View Post
because it is common for aircraft to fly outside those tolerances on approaches.
WTF? Are you even a pilot? For info the poster who was agreeing with you earlier in the thread isn't one.

I have done the research in as far as reading the regs - I did that even before I posted here. Which was why I asked - in my very first post - was there something I had missed.

The answer, as it turned out, is no.
Rubbish. Of course you are legally required to climb. Look up missed approach climb gradients.

You also go on to say you can discontinue a missed approach and conduct a visual approach. Look up the IFR requirements for visual approaches.

You say this is a purely academic argument. But then you contradict yourself and say that ATOs and instructors are promoting this in practice.

I seriously doubt that. If that's true then the industry is in more trouble than I imagined.
Derfred is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 05:25
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Townsville
Age: 35
Posts: 4
Keep reading - ENR 1.1

2.3.9 Terrain and Obstacle Clearance
Obstacle/terrain avoidance while below the LSALT or MSA, as
applicable, is a pilot responsibility except in the circumstances
described in para 2.3.9.1.

2.3.9.3 If visual reference is lost, either through equipment failure or
deteriorating weather conditions, crews MUST CLIMB to the
appropriate LSALT/MSA and advise ATC as soon as
practicable. ATC will treat this as an emergency situation and
may apply emergency separation services.

Not to mention you cannot legally be below LSALT/MSA in IMC without being vectored or following a published approach procedure.

It's a dead argument - move on.
avi8r84 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 06:15
  #74 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by Derfred View Post
WTF? Are you even a pilot? For info the poster who was agreeing with you earlier in the thread isn't one.
WTF? Have you ever done an instrument approach?

WTF? If aircraft didn't occasionally go out of tolerance on an approach, there would be no need for ENR 1.5 1.10.1.

WTF? Can you even read English?

Because if you could, WTF?, you would know that MA climb gradients are plotted from the MAPt, and that this whole thread concerns executing a missed approach prior to the MAPt.

You would also know, WTF?, that any time you break visual with the runway you can execute a landing within the circling area subject to ENR 1.5 1.10.1(c), to wit:

c. a landing cannot be effected from a runway approach, unless a circling approach can be conducted in weather conditions equal to or better than those specified for circling;
Do yourself a favor, pal, don't just jump into some thread you haven't taken the time to understand and start asserting your own illiteracy.

It's been spelled out under what circumstances it was proposed to level out, get back on track and fly to the MAPt before climbing - and it was a proposal, not a promotion. I asked if it was legal or not. And not you, nor any one else who has resorted to personal attacks instead of addressing the original question has provided any evidence to the contrary.

So save your sanctimony and back your argument up. Or not.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 06:23
  #75 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD View Post
VT, if your mates were doing the 15 ILS to CNS, and decided to go missed at say, 700ft, for whatever reason (be it out of tolerance or u/s navaid) would they really not climb until reaching the 15 DME arc; long after they have tracked to the MAPT and commenced the turn?

If you are tacking the missed approach instructions absolutely literally in the order it's written, that's what they would be doing. Please ask them if they think it's logical, and safe. If they think so, well, that's just insane I'm sorry.
As I've already pointed out, we're not talking about precision approaches.

This is not directed at you, RAMROD, but there are a lot of people here quick to comment and slow to read.

If I'm starting to sound defensive now, well, I didn't start out that way. I don't feel I really need to be respectful, any more, of those who have not afforded me the same courtesy.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 06:56
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,342
As I've already pointed out, we're not talking about precision approaches
Where was that slipped in?
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 07:18
  #77 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
Where was that slipped in?
Originally Posted by Virtually There
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?
Post 50, etc.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 07:27
  #78 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by dehg5776 View Post
I don't understand why you persevere with this.
Originally Posted by Virtually There
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.
Actually, I got my answer a few pages ago and said as much in Post 52. But, you know, then the seagulls swooped with their suggestions I wanted to kill myself etc, and here we are, flogging a dead horse because everyone reads - or doesn't read - what they want to before commenting.

To those who have remained civil and pointed out various regs and reasons why they think the climb must always start immediately in a MA prior to the MAPt, thank you for taking the time to post.
Virtually There is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 07:33
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,759
Couple of points:

1. On a precision approach the DA is at the MAP, so no, you don't normally climb out before the MAP on a precision approach. However, if you did do a missed approach prior to the DA then you would climb out straight away.

2. You say it is common to be out of tracking tolerance. No, it is not common. What is common, is to track down the middle of the approach and either get visual and land or not get visual and go around. I have never been, nor seen anyone fly, out of tolerance outside of a simulator session.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2017, 07:43
  #80 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by dehg5776 View Post
Like you have said before, your ATO and instructors have found a grey area and seem to be thinking too much into it, but it is ultimately at their peril. Such behaviour is seriously frowned upon by airlines, as SOP's rule, and I think a lot of people on here getting upset are doing so for this reason. They are trying to help you and guide you away from listening to something that has no basis in common sense and airmanship.
I understand, and thank you for taking the time to post. This is the GA forum - none of what I've written applies to the jet jockeys - and all I was really asking was for someone to point out the regs. Some did, and I presented counter-arguments highlighting grey areas that had already been considered. It's not a matter of spitting in anyone's face - it was simply about exploring the legalities of a different interpretation of the regs I had recently heard, and wanting to know if there was something that had been overlooked.

For the record, the scenario put to me was slipping out of tolerance on an RNAV at 5 or so miles out and then, in accordance with the regs, leveling out (thus discontinuing the approach), tracking to the MAPt, and commencing the climb as instructed by the plate. If you were to get visual in the mean time, all good and well.

When I first heard this, I argued against it like everyone else here. But then I wondered, is there anything legally wrong with it in certain circumstances?

My mistake was simply trying to explore that here.
Virtually There 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.