The regs are normally written for the lowest common denominator.

I feel we have just reached a new low.

Standby for more regs. :confused:

Track to the MAP.

Fair point, but as you say, you may still be configured for a circling approach.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

You want a legal take? Have a think for a moment about tort law, a duty of care and negligence (assuming you live!):ugh:

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.

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?

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.

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.

They need to use better wording then.

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.

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.

AIP ENR 1.5 -10 Missed Approach Tracking
You weren't wrong trojan.

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.

http://www.flight.org/r/2013/03/570/...leration-1.jpg

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.

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 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 stop descending, track to the missed approach point then follow what's published. Easy!

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!

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.

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 . . . :rolleyes:

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 . . .

Because ad hominems are an incomparable form of argument - is that what you're trying to say?

Completely in agreement.

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.

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)?

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?"

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.

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.

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.

This whole thread is embarrassing......

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.

WTF? Are you even a pilot? For info the poster who was agreeing with you earlier in the thread isn't one.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

Where was that slipped in?

Post 50, etc.

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.

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.