Missed approach decision
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming by 'missed approach' you mean a Go-Around and missed approach there are a lot of reasons why you might conduct a missed approach:
Unstable on the approach (too high, too low, too fast, not configured correctly)
ATC mandated instruction
Blocked runway
Not visual with required minima at decision height
The approach 'doesn't feel right' (woolly that one!
)
Deep landing.
Bounce.
A malfunction that mandates an automatic go around (normally associated with low vis ops but not necessarily, etc. Gear malfunction/flap/slat malfunctions, anything that might change the landing performance from that which was briefed!)
Once the decision has been made then the procedure is pretty routine from my point of view. Initiate the go-around calling for any flap changes, power up, pitch up, gear up when climbing. Climb to the missed approach altitude, accelerate, clean up and follow the lateral and vertical profiles of the procedure. In many places, Zurich for example, the GA procedure is pretty complex both vertically and laterally and really needs to be properly briefed not only as to why you would fly it but also how.
Hope that helps.
Unstable on the approach (too high, too low, too fast, not configured correctly)
ATC mandated instruction
Blocked runway
Not visual with required minima at decision height
The approach 'doesn't feel right' (woolly that one!
)Deep landing.
Bounce.
A malfunction that mandates an automatic go around (normally associated with low vis ops but not necessarily, etc. Gear malfunction/flap/slat malfunctions, anything that might change the landing performance from that which was briefed!)
Once the decision has been made then the procedure is pretty routine from my point of view. Initiate the go-around calling for any flap changes, power up, pitch up, gear up when climbing. Climb to the missed approach altitude, accelerate, clean up and follow the lateral and vertical profiles of the procedure. In many places, Zurich for example, the GA procedure is pretty complex both vertically and laterally and really needs to be properly briefed not only as to why you would fly it but also how.
Hope that helps.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much for your answers. I was wondering what could lead a go-around to a critical situation such as the loss of control of the flight path or even a CFIT. What is the most difficult aspect to handle during a go-around ? Physiological factors (stress, fatigue,...), the coordination between the crew, the environment (weather) ?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending upon the cause for the missed approach you need to generally ensure that you have the aircraft under positive control both laterally and vertically.
In mountainous terrain then CFIT is a very dangerous possibility so switching your, or the whole crews attention from 'approach mode' to 'go-around mode' is, in my opinion, essential.
One of the trickiest parts in a multi crew operation is ensuring that the reasons for the go-around, especially if self generated, are put behind you and the critical procedure is followed. This includes any malfunction checklists that might need to be deferred if the pattern is complex.
The absolute necessity is 'fly the plane'. Full use of automatics if available and ensure that the go-around procedure is accurately followed. Normally complex go-arounds, Zurich, Hong-Kong etc. will be fully briefed during the approach brief, checked in the FMC (if equipped) and talked through not only what heights and restrictions are involved but also how the procedure is to be flown.
As before, fly the plane!!!! If you allow distraction (diving into checklists, grumbling about poorly flown approaches etc..) or deviate off of the laid down procedure you are putting your aircraft, passengers and crew in danger.
In mountainous terrain then CFIT is a very dangerous possibility so switching your, or the whole crews attention from 'approach mode' to 'go-around mode' is, in my opinion, essential.
One of the trickiest parts in a multi crew operation is ensuring that the reasons for the go-around, especially if self generated, are put behind you and the critical procedure is followed. This includes any malfunction checklists that might need to be deferred if the pattern is complex.
The absolute necessity is 'fly the plane'. Full use of automatics if available and ensure that the go-around procedure is accurately followed. Normally complex go-arounds, Zurich, Hong-Kong etc. will be fully briefed during the approach brief, checked in the FMC (if equipped) and talked through not only what heights and restrictions are involved but also how the procedure is to be flown.
As before, fly the plane!!!! If you allow distraction (diving into checklists, grumbling about poorly flown approaches etc..) or deviate off of the laid down procedure you are putting your aircraft, passengers and crew in danger.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an approach controller student in Geneva and I wanted to understand what is going on on the other side of the radar screen. Thank you for these precious answers. It is really helping me. And do you think the training in simulator prepares crews to properly execute go-arounds in real operations ?
It is critical for a few reasons.
1. A normal all engines running go-around is rarely practiced. Sim time is more often devoted to engine out stuff and an engine out go-around is in many ways easier because your performance is degraded and things happen more slowly.
2. It is a busy phase of flight that tends to have a lot of things happening at once. Flying the aeroplane, reconfiguring, spitting out your SOPs, communicating on the radio etc.
3. Missed approach procedures with a low level off altitude can have the aircraft racing through its flap speeds pretty quick and older types with old fashioned automation offer little if any protection against over speeds. Newer types with more automation can create their own problems if you are not fully up to speed with how the automation works in a go-around (see point 1.)
4. They happen at the end of a flight when crews may be tired. The fuel state may be such that decisions need to be made about what to do next.
I don't mean to imply that every go-around is a shambles, my point is more that they have a high concentration of "threats" that need to be managed in a short space of time.
1. A normal all engines running go-around is rarely practiced. Sim time is more often devoted to engine out stuff and an engine out go-around is in many ways easier because your performance is degraded and things happen more slowly.
2. It is a busy phase of flight that tends to have a lot of things happening at once. Flying the aeroplane, reconfiguring, spitting out your SOPs, communicating on the radio etc.
3. Missed approach procedures with a low level off altitude can have the aircraft racing through its flap speeds pretty quick and older types with old fashioned automation offer little if any protection against over speeds. Newer types with more automation can create their own problems if you are not fully up to speed with how the automation works in a go-around (see point 1.)
4. They happen at the end of a flight when crews may be tired. The fuel state may be such that decisions need to be made about what to do next.
I don't mean to imply that every go-around is a shambles, my point is more that they have a high concentration of "threats" that need to be managed in a short space of time.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Edinburgh
Age: 36
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a good question if the OP doesn't mind jumping in? Lets say your DA 270 and you need to go around above this altitude, would you you continue down to the DA and then fly the MAP or level off ?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets say your DA 270 and you need to go around above this altitude
There is nothing to say you couldn't go all the way down if the decision to conduct a missed approach had already been made but there is no necessity.
If ATC instruct you or you don't meet your stabalised approach criteria well before DA then there is nothing wrong in quickly revisiting the missed approach instructions, talking through the procedure and then carrying it out.
You must never descend below the MDH/DH without proper visual references though.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ATC instruct you or you don't meet your stabalised approach criteria well before DA then there is nothing wrong in quickly revisiting the missed approach instructions, talking through the procedure and then carrying it out.
You should NOT delay a missed approach once the instruction is given or the decision is made! You should have "talk[ed] trough the procedure" in the approach briefing. Once the airplane is climbing, you MIGHT have to make a quick assessment as to whether any turn should be done immediately, or wait until a particular point.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say what?!?
A quick run through of what you are about to do makes the procedure far more simple.
If I'm unstable at 1000' and my co-pilot calls go-around then I'll go around but I won't rush it.
If I'm at MDA/DA and the call is made THEN I'll punch the TOGA switches immediately or in the case of a baulked landing or a go-around in the latter stages of a CAT III landing. Otherwise take your time.
Obviously PRM procedures not withstanding.
More people screw up routine go-arounds and overspeed the flaps or forget the gear by rushing so why do it?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Upper Deck
Age: 40
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wirbelsturm, just saying, CAT IIIB approach, NDH, rvr falls below minima, what do you do? or, standard ILS CAT I....stunning day and visibility...1500ft you see a mate lining up and he broke the nosewheel steering blocking you...ATC calls for a go around...do you fly till 200ft RA close to the unlucky guy before hitting the magic button?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody said continue to MDH/DH, just there's no screaming rush for the go-around. A couple of hundred feet just to re-iterate the procedure isn't going to cause anyone a problem.
Chatting for a few seconds and initiating at 1000' instead of 1500' isn't going to cause your mate with the broken nosewheel any problems but it is likely to be a much more relaxed manoeuvre for you.
CAT III approaches have their own problems and the brief will have alluded to them for the events you listed. RVR's are advisory below 1000' so continue anyway if below or a nice gentle go-around if above. I've always found CAT IIIB No DH in 75m RVR an interesting prospect anyway and a mandatory go-around below critical altitude has to be immediate. You will find in my previous posts that actions AT decision height/alt have to be immediate. Again early in the approach what's the rush? As you get down to the limits then there is a need for immediate action, I would counter that the further back up the slope you are the necessity for 'immediate' (and rushed) action reduces.
Keep it simple.
Chatting for a few seconds and initiating at 1000' instead of 1500' isn't going to cause your mate with the broken nosewheel any problems but it is likely to be a much more relaxed manoeuvre for you.
CAT III approaches have their own problems and the brief will have alluded to them for the events you listed. RVR's are advisory below 1000' so continue anyway if below or a nice gentle go-around if above. I've always found CAT IIIB No DH in 75m RVR an interesting prospect anyway and a mandatory go-around below critical altitude has to be immediate. You will find in my previous posts that actions AT decision height/alt have to be immediate. Again early in the approach what's the rush? As you get down to the limits then there is a need for immediate action, I would counter that the further back up the slope you are the necessity for 'immediate' (and rushed) action reduces.
Keep it simple.
Wirbelsturm, just saying, CAT IIIB approach, NDH, rvr falls below minima, what do you do?
b) Immediate Go-Around
c) Not enough information to answer.
(Oh sorry, just finished annual tech quiz...
)I've seen at least one "high level" go-around that fits exactly with Maybug's description...in hindsight just 5 seconds discussion would have avoided an awkward phone call..
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen at least one "high level" go-around that fits exactly with Maybug's description...in hindsight just 5 seconds discussion would have avoided an awkward phone call..
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go arounds
The reason why Go arounds cause so many problems are many.
1. They are often unexpected. (Surprise effect)
2.Two and four engine GAs are not practised in the Sim (usually)
G/As in auto in the big Boeings is a doddle, in manual it's a different story!
3. It is at the end of a sortie so the aircraft is light and you are in manual Trigger theGo levers and what happens next: TOGA the aircraft is off like a startled bunny. If the GA altitude is low then the potential for a LL alt CAP in Boeing speak is high. Both crew members have to work to get the A/C correctly configured, unless PF disconnects the auto throttle and reduces power the potential for an over speed or alt bust is very high. ( See 4 below)
4. Trying to sort out the automatics frequently causes heads down. Hopefully not from both though! From experience The children of the magenta line do have problems.
Much better IM (old fashioned) opinion . Fly the aircraft in manual. Do what you get paid for!
1. They are often unexpected. (Surprise effect)
2.Two and four engine GAs are not practised in the Sim (usually)
G/As in auto in the big Boeings is a doddle, in manual it's a different story!
3. It is at the end of a sortie so the aircraft is light and you are in manual Trigger theGo levers and what happens next: TOGA the aircraft is off like a startled bunny. If the GA altitude is low then the potential for a LL alt CAP in Boeing speak is high. Both crew members have to work to get the A/C correctly configured, unless PF disconnects the auto throttle and reduces power the potential for an over speed or alt bust is very high. ( See 4 below)
4. Trying to sort out the automatics frequently causes heads down. Hopefully not from both though! From experience The children of the magenta line do have problems.
Much better IM (old fashioned) opinion . Fly the aircraft in manual. Do what you get paid for!
Only half a speed-brake
For exactly those reasons, I am in unison with Wirbelsturm to take 2-4 seconds lull between the decision and hitting the TO/GA. To re-focus on things to come and make sure both crewmembers are squarely ahead of the aircraft.
regards, FD.
regards, FD.
Wirbelsturm is spot on the money. If you don't accept that a G/A from anything other than no contact at the the MDA can be thought through before being executed just search the web for incident reports on mishandled go-arounds.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said anything about a "screaming rush". Your "2-4 seconds" is easily eaten up by the normal cockpit procedure:
ATC: Airline 500 go around; traffic.
PM: Airline 500, roger, go around.
PF: OK, go around, flaps 20. [Press TOGA]
PM: Go around, flpas 20 [Move flap lever]
It can - and SHOULD - be done in an expeditious, but unrushed, manner.
Nope. Once you are told by ATC to go around, and you are on an IFR approach, your clearance changes to "abandon [your] approach to landing", and any previous clearance is cancelled. Unless otherwise cleared, you follow the missed approach procedure. FAA Pilot-Controller Glossary:
ATC: Airline 500 go around; traffic.
PM: Airline 500, roger, go around.
PF: OK, go around, flaps 20. [Press TOGA]
PM: Go around, flpas 20 [Move flap lever]
It can - and SHOULD - be done in an expeditious, but unrushed, manner.
Why? If you are sent around from, say 1500ft, on an approach due to a blocked runway or an incident on the airfield you are cleared down to DA/MDA on the approach anyway.
GO AROUND− Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing. Additional instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft or an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as instructed by ATC; e.g., “Go around” (additional instructions if required).
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowhere in there does it say 'immediate'.
Quite.
You are abandoning your approach, once a go-around has been called I have no intention of landing. I am content to remain in the safe approach path until which point I carry out my manoeuvre.
Again quite correct but nowhere does it say execute immediately. Take a few seconds, explain what you are about to do and execute it. My bold but of often the published missed approach begins at decision height or the runway threshold.
What's the problem with that?
expeditious, but unrushed, manner.
abandon [your] approach to landing
A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as instructed by ATC; e.g., “Go around” (additional instructions if required).
What's the problem with that?
Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 20th Oct 2015 at 19:43.
