Go-Arounds
Guest
Posts: n/a
Go-Arounds
If a standard missed approach states that you climb to 3000ft and fly a specific track, what happens when.....?
If you are instructed to stop climb at altitude 2000ft (for separation reasons), will you continue with the rest of the standard missed approach or will you climb straight ahead?
From a worried and confused atco
If you are instructed to stop climb at altitude 2000ft (for separation reasons), will you continue with the rest of the standard missed approach or will you climb straight ahead?
From a worried and confused atco
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tricky one! Only because I fly out of Gatwick and not LHR. I am going to make an assumption here that there are no obstacles which limit the track to 3000ft amsl. In this case I would follow the MAP but tell the ATCO I was doing it so that if he forgot to mention that he wanted me to climb straight ahead, it might jog his memory.
Now, what's the correct solution?
------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!
Now, what's the correct solution?
------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!
Guest
Posts: n/a
No obsticles to limit the climb. Just wanted to make sure with some vertical spearation along with lateral. The pilot i think assumed i meant straight ahead. Could have been nasty thankfully not.
Cheers for the post any further help much appreciated.
[This message has been edited by cleared2land 27left (edited 09 November 2000).]
Cheers for the post any further help much appreciated.
[This message has been edited by cleared2land 27left (edited 09 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guest
Posts: n/a
C2L27L,
watch the next few go-arounds at your place and I'm sure you will see at least half of them either level bust (especially off 27L)or miss the turn any way. Be even more careful in CAT 3!!
There could be a case that if you change any part of a clearance you nullify the rest of it (don't agree with that personally) so be wary. So if you ever decide to take anyone off a SID or a published Missaed Approach procedure give a heading/track and level. In fact I think that is now standard on your CPT off 09R? Don't you now add 'maintain 6A' after the heading instruction?
watch the next few go-arounds at your place and I'm sure you will see at least half of them either level bust (especially off 27L)or miss the turn any way. Be even more careful in CAT 3!!
There could be a case that if you change any part of a clearance you nullify the rest of it (don't agree with that personally) so be wary. So if you ever decide to take anyone off a SID or a published Missaed Approach procedure give a heading/track and level. In fact I think that is now standard on your CPT off 09R? Don't you now add 'maintain 6A' after the heading instruction?
Guest
Posts: n/a
C2L27L
I'm left with an uneasy feeling about this one.
As pilots we have to be concerned about terrain clearance, and we satisfy ourselves by either being on a published procedure or route (e.g. IAP, SID, STAR, airway) or by accepting a radar vector which we trust will only be issued with radar contact and when our altitude is above your MVA.
A missed approach or a SID is a three-dimensional procedure. We're safe at or above the prescribed altitudes on the route: below the profile we're at risk, and terrain clearance is not assured.
To issue an altitude restriction that keeps an aircraft below the published altitude seems to be a mix-and-match situation. Who's responsible for terrain separation, and for how long? In the situations you describe, are you promising terrain separation at the inetrmediate altitude for the whole missed approach or SID?
At Heathrow it might not seem like an issue -- you say "No obstacles to limit the climb" but that's not how the game is played. The pilot doesn't know that, and can't assume that. SIDs aren't annotated with "this altitude is for ATC" and "this one is for terrain, you die below this".
The AA965 Cali crash (B757 vs Colombian mountain) had as a strong contributory factor a willingness on the part of the crew to accept what they believed to be a direct clearance in a non-radar environment to somewhere they should never have been going to direct, where the only safe route was the published one at the published altitude. They probably acquired that unquestioning attitude in the flatlands of the eastern US.
I can't find anything in PANS-OPS or PANS-RAC to back me up on this and perhaps it all goes out of the window in a radar environment. But I think you should issue explicit instructions for lateral guidance (e.g. a radar heading or an instruction to turn). That will keep pedants like me happy, and it just might keep the crews of your customers alive when they mishear a 'stop the climb' instruction coming out of Geneva on the return leg.
I'm left with an uneasy feeling about this one.
As pilots we have to be concerned about terrain clearance, and we satisfy ourselves by either being on a published procedure or route (e.g. IAP, SID, STAR, airway) or by accepting a radar vector which we trust will only be issued with radar contact and when our altitude is above your MVA.
A missed approach or a SID is a three-dimensional procedure. We're safe at or above the prescribed altitudes on the route: below the profile we're at risk, and terrain clearance is not assured.
To issue an altitude restriction that keeps an aircraft below the published altitude seems to be a mix-and-match situation. Who's responsible for terrain separation, and for how long? In the situations you describe, are you promising terrain separation at the inetrmediate altitude for the whole missed approach or SID?
At Heathrow it might not seem like an issue -- you say "No obstacles to limit the climb" but that's not how the game is played. The pilot doesn't know that, and can't assume that. SIDs aren't annotated with "this altitude is for ATC" and "this one is for terrain, you die below this".
The AA965 Cali crash (B757 vs Colombian mountain) had as a strong contributory factor a willingness on the part of the crew to accept what they believed to be a direct clearance in a non-radar environment to somewhere they should never have been going to direct, where the only safe route was the published one at the published altitude. They probably acquired that unquestioning attitude in the flatlands of the eastern US.
I can't find anything in PANS-OPS or PANS-RAC to back me up on this and perhaps it all goes out of the window in a radar environment. But I think you should issue explicit instructions for lateral guidance (e.g. a radar heading or an instruction to turn). That will keep pedants like me happy, and it just might keep the crews of your customers alive when they mishear a 'stop the climb' instruction coming out of Geneva on the return leg.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My humble understanding is that somewhere in teh publications is a little note that says a SID/STAR can NOT be modified.. any variation transmission must start with "Cancel SID, Turn... blah blah" The readback is likewise "Cancel SID, Turn... blah blah". Why not same for a MAP? This is dragged up from a failing memory but rings bells from IR Training days in Oz.. (that'll get me shot down for sure).. but I see no reason why you couldn't say "Track via SID, Climb amended 3000" Flying these days in Western Europe I must say that I find adherence to good RT practices and standard phraseology to be somewhat wanting on occassions (and to keep me from bursting into flames.. teh UK and Germany are by far and away teh best IMVHO)
I would be interested in anyone with access to MATS letting us know what teh standard pharseologies are for these situations.
------------------
Brad Marsh
[email protected]
Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity, and sometimes I'm not too sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
I would be interested in anyone with access to MATS letting us know what teh standard pharseologies are for these situations.
------------------
Brad Marsh
[email protected]
Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity, and sometimes I'm not too sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
Luton26 has a SID (OLNEY) which limits you to 5000' until so many dme off BNN then 6000' - however the clearance is ALWAYS given as the SID with cleared level 5000 until advised. 9 times out of 10 you don't complete the SID anyway, once in a while you do complete the SID but have to wait till London gives the OK to climb above 5000. Surprised they dont just change the sid to 5000' full stop!
