Missed Approach - when to climb?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Track to the MAP.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
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.
d) flight technical tolerances:
1) pilot reaction time: 0 to +3 s; and
2) bank establishment time: 0 to +3 s.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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...
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
You either have to be visual, or if in cloud on an approach or radar LSALT or above a MSA.