Swing over with missed approach
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GSPOT- you're changing the question to suit your answer. The question was about 2 parallel runways as at LHR. You have no experience at airline ops at airports like LHR, so your answer is misleading.
So please calm down - perhaps you would feel happier if I had attached "discuss" to the end of my post, my point was valid.
Love to hear about your EHAM approach 27ILS followed by a "Swingover" for R22 (ATC quote if we are being pedantic about quoting the original poster) if you go around of R22 mate people will get hurt.
PS nobody mentioned LHR until you did......
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it called 'Swing Over' now? It has happened to me a few times in the USA, at LAX, e.g. 24L and 24R and there it is/was called 'Side Step'.
At LHR I was finals 27L in VMC and and asked if I could still make 27R, answer 'Yes', 'Roger, you are now cleared to land 27R' in that case I would, having visually established finals 27R, done the missed approach for 27R.
At LHR I was finals 27L in VMC and and asked if I could still make 27R, answer 'Yes', 'Roger, you are now cleared to land 27R' in that case I would, having visually established finals 27R, done the missed approach for 27R.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there anything written about it?? The thing is, which missed approach has been briefed?? Why would I be forced to fly "by memory" a missed approach for a runway i wasn't expecting to land on, and also i hadn't taken a look at the plate either??... What's even worse, maybe the plate for that runway I'm side steping to, is not in sight (i don't know you, but i keep the plate i'm "flying" on top (on the plates holder), and it's not a good idea to be switching them while hand flying at a few hundred feets agl). My common sense says, I'd fly the missed approach for the runway i was originally approaching to... Then again, IS THERE ANYTHING WRITTEN ABOUT IT??? (of course, there must be..) However, if in doubt, I'd request the atc to give me "instructions in case of a missed approach"
Last edited by downsouth; 6th Nov 2007 at 04:38.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where it's written down for you guys, but in our Heathrow Manual of Air Traffic Services it's in black and white that we can expect you to do the MAP for the original runway, hence we should promptly take corrective action.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo- you can't fly the original GA as written. You are looking for a DME reading off the ILS to make your turn north or south as appropriate to make your turn away from the airport at LHR. If you have moved to the other runway, you are not going to get that DME reading at all, so it is impractical. If what you say is correct, then the whole thing is dangerous as if you fly the original GA, you will be turning right over the central area to cross over the other runway- a bit crazy considering that somebody may have been cleared for take-off on it. When I have done this procedure in the past at LHR, we have had time to retune the ILS and get the GA read out. So when you GA, where does that leave you.
It is largely a theoretical discussion anyway as BA issued a notice to refuse swingovers like this a few years back. The reason was we are to be stabilised at 1000' at the latest lined up with the runway. Therefore you have to be changed over much further back, which makes it a whole new approach, with time to appraise yourself of the procedures for the new runway.
I now know enough not to accept them at all, as ATC procedures appear to be so confused, unless it is quite understood what the GA procedure is to be. Because of the doubts about it being thought through enough at LHR at least, that is most certainly a place to decline them unless it is agreed what must be done. Discussing potential GAs below 1000' is daft. Don't do them then. Especially when company procedures ban them.
It is largely a theoretical discussion anyway as BA issued a notice to refuse swingovers like this a few years back. The reason was we are to be stabilised at 1000' at the latest lined up with the runway. Therefore you have to be changed over much further back, which makes it a whole new approach, with time to appraise yourself of the procedures for the new runway.
I now know enough not to accept them at all, as ATC procedures appear to be so confused, unless it is quite understood what the GA procedure is to be. Because of the doubts about it being thought through enough at LHR at least, that is most certainly a place to decline them unless it is agreed what must be done. Discussing potential GAs below 1000' is daft. Don't do them then. Especially when company procedures ban them.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We'd never get as far as allowing you to fly it, though. Our books say that we should expect you to fly it, precisely so that we know what might happen, so that we go in and positively control things.
Is it not the case that you would get a 0DME 27L at some stage if you were overflying 27R, because DME south has been zeroed to read 0DME at both the TDZ of 27L and the TDZ of 09R. That arc would continue to intersect 27R at some point.
I switched a BA 319 last week, at 3 miles. He was wings level on final at about 400ft.
Is it not the case that you would get a 0DME 27L at some stage if you were overflying 27R, because DME south has been zeroed to read 0DME at both the TDZ of 27L and the TDZ of 09R. That arc would continue to intersect 27R at some point.
I switched a BA 319 last week, at 3 miles. He was wings level on final at about 400ft.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not aware of a zero reading being possible at both thresholds- it's beyond my training and understanding of this zero reading, which is faked anyway.
For flight recorder reasons, we have instructions- we should be stabilised in all respects at 1000'. We must be stabilised by 500'. Otherwise you will get phone calls when the flight recorder shops you- as you will if you don't detune the ILS (full scale deflection will get you a phone call). So it is no longer really a practically acceptable procedure- you have to detune the ILS, which you say you need for the GA. Hearing how busy and congested the tower frequency can be, it has become a recipe for an accident these days. That Airbus Captain will have had a phone call about doing that.
For flight recorder reasons, we have instructions- we should be stabilised in all respects at 1000'. We must be stabilised by 500'. Otherwise you will get phone calls when the flight recorder shops you- as you will if you don't detune the ILS (full scale deflection will get you a phone call). So it is no longer really a practically acceptable procedure- you have to detune the ILS, which you say you need for the GA. Hearing how busy and congested the tower frequency can be, it has become a recipe for an accident these days. That Airbus Captain will have had a phone call about doing that.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missed approach relevant to the runway you are on, seems the only logical answer, UNLESS, they have passed alternative missed approach instructions (rwy heading to 3000', etc)
L337. I would also be careful of carrying out a visual manoeuver having gone 'visual' in the united states.
We were landing aircraft on something-Right in the US (possibly Boston)recently, when an (US)aircraft someway behind had to break off the approach (parallel in use). The pilot was visual. What ensued was a fairly urgent exchange over the radio. The controller wanted a standard missed approach. The pilot wanted to do 'a quick turn right, and give it another go'. After several increasingly emphasised calls from tower controller, he finally got the message.
There were at least 4 calls on the subject with no other calls in between. The missed apprach really keeps everyone separate and safe, and gives people time to decide what to do next.
L337. I would also be careful of carrying out a visual manoeuver having gone 'visual' in the united states.
We were landing aircraft on something-Right in the US (possibly Boston)recently, when an (US)aircraft someway behind had to break off the approach (parallel in use). The pilot was visual. What ensued was a fairly urgent exchange over the radio. The controller wanted a standard missed approach. The pilot wanted to do 'a quick turn right, and give it another go'. After several increasingly emphasised calls from tower controller, he finally got the message.
There were at least 4 calls on the subject with no other calls in between. The missed apprach really keeps everyone separate and safe, and gives people time to decide what to do next.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget what you THINK is best
Gonzo
Your procedures are exactly what I got on my last refresher, one rule needs to be applied and written down to avoid Pilot Interpretation and therefore as many different GA's as pilots.
Rainboe I shall sincerely bow to your experience and admit that your actions on any given day AT HEATHROW would no doubt be safer and what you are saying is no doubt correct about the safety aspects but there needs to be a common denominator for all operators and airport.
Which brings me back to my original post, the parallel runway was a red herring......... circle, swingover, sidestep call it what you want -fly the original missed. ATC will know what you are planning to do and issue instructions before you get anywhere near the published procedure for the original runway
Your procedures are exactly what I got on my last refresher, one rule needs to be applied and written down to avoid Pilot Interpretation and therefore as many different GA's as pilots.
Rainboe I shall sincerely bow to your experience and admit that your actions on any given day AT HEATHROW would no doubt be safer and what you are saying is no doubt correct about the safety aspects but there needs to be a common denominator for all operators and airport.
Which brings me back to my original post, the parallel runway was a red herring......... circle, swingover, sidestep call it what you want -fly the original missed. ATC will know what you are planning to do and issue instructions before you get anywhere near the published procedure for the original runway
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missed approach relevant to the runway you are on, seems the only logical answer,
UNLESS, they have passed alternative missed approach instructions (rwy heading to 3000', etc)
) more than likely you will not ever make the IFR missed approach procedure, common sense prevails.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are missing the point chaps. You physically cannot fly the original missed approach (at LHR at least). You must detune the original ILS to turn towards the other runway otherwise the flight recorder will throw up a deviation and an unstabilised approach. Therefore come a GA, you would have to retune the ILS to check DME readings for a GA, in the middle of a GA, and commence your turn very rapidly.
Besides which BA issued a notice to decline such swingovers about 4 or 5 years ago, for this very reason.
I'm afraid this is very academic now- it is no longer a simple procedure as it used to be before flight recorder monitoring. I shall certainly decline it unless it is understood the procedure to follow, but that is not easy when LHR tower is so congested sometimes you cannot break in to say anything. It's asking for an incident. Nowadays we are supposed to be stabilised with no turns by 1000'. It can no longer be done.
I'm afraid it is no longer thought through. If you are switched runways 12 miles out? Are people suggesting you fly the original runway GA? That's daft. So where is the 'dividing line' where ATC will expect you to fly the new GA or the old one? Where does it become a 'changed' approach and not a runway swingover? If I'm 15 miles out from AMS 27 and they switch me to 24, will they really expect me to fly a 27 GA? I bet it would cause considerable surprise! It's important because line pilots just do not have this information- and they are the ones that count, not some ATC rule book!.
Besides which BA issued a notice to decline such swingovers about 4 or 5 years ago, for this very reason.
I'm afraid this is very academic now- it is no longer a simple procedure as it used to be before flight recorder monitoring. I shall certainly decline it unless it is understood the procedure to follow, but that is not easy when LHR tower is so congested sometimes you cannot break in to say anything. It's asking for an incident. Nowadays we are supposed to be stabilised with no turns by 1000'. It can no longer be done.
I'm afraid it is no longer thought through. If you are switched runways 12 miles out? Are people suggesting you fly the original runway GA? That's daft. So where is the 'dividing line' where ATC will expect you to fly the new GA or the old one? Where does it become a 'changed' approach and not a runway swingover? If I'm 15 miles out from AMS 27 and they switch me to 24, will they really expect me to fly a 27 GA? I bet it would cause considerable surprise! It's important because line pilots just do not have this information- and they are the ones that count, not some ATC rule book!.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dream land
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I experienced the swing over procedure in EDDF on quiet a few occasions, but to avoid the confusion you can always refuse the swing over in the first place and if you have to do a G/A because of it ,there is no argument!
I'm all for keeping it simple, it's difficult enough to decide if it is tea or coffee on the turn around.
The other thing in EDDL is that they ask you to swing over fairly late, which at the time didn't conform with our SOP, stablised approch criteria.
good luck anyway
I'm all for keeping it simple, it's difficult enough to decide if it is tea or coffee on the turn around.
The other thing in EDDL is that they ask you to swing over fairly late, which at the time didn't conform with our SOP, stablised approch criteria.
good luck anyway
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure Waffle Now - what has your onboard monitoring system got to do with following ATC procedure that is written in Black and White?
If you did get hauled over the coals because of said monitoring, surely if you demonstrated that you were flying in compliance with established ATC procedures they couldn't say much!
Many operators don't have on board monitoring !!! - Aircraft Type/Kind Of Operations is also irrelevant. Forget Heathrow/BA/on board monitoring/ The original question didn't mention any of these. Its a question of procedure .
If you did get hauled over the coals because of said monitoring, surely if you demonstrated that you were flying in compliance with established ATC procedures they couldn't say much!
Many operators don't have on board monitoring !!! - Aircraft Type/Kind Of Operations is also irrelevant. Forget Heathrow/BA/on board monitoring/ The original question didn't mention any of these. Its a question of procedure .
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't follow ATC established procedures if it puts you in contravention of your company's established operating procedures, so it is relevant, I'm afraid, not waffle! You operate the aeroplane in accord with your company flying manual and obey requirements. So the only answer is to decline all swingovers if you cannot stay within company procedure guidelines, and maybe accept a GA as a result. At least there will be no doubt as to what you then do! It looks like ATC must clean up their procedures here.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The orginal question went something very much like this:
And now you are saying:
So you iniitally offer an opinion, its proved incorrect and now you justify your error by saying that in effect it doesn't matter becasue you cant do them anyway. Why respond to the thread?
And as for :
and
And in all of Germany presumably
Priceless, I've said enough already you can be judged by your peers on these gems.
Suggest you find a tin hat.
Let's assume you are flying an ILS at airport with two parallel runways e.g. 27L. You are offered a swing over to 27R and you do so. For any reason a missed approach has to be conducted. Which procedure do you fly, for 27L or 27R ?
So the only answer is to decline all swingovers if you cannot stay within company procedure guidelines
And as for :
You don't follow ATC established procedures if it puts you in contravention of your company's established operating procedures
It looks like ATC must clean up their procedures here
Priceless, I've said enough already you can be judged by your peers on these gems.
Suggest you find a tin hat.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this was a discussion to find the answer to a question and how to conduct a procedure. You appear to see it as two sides with tin helmets on, winner to be declared. You have provided no answer to serious operational questions- I don't see it as an effective safe procedure, whatever allegedly ATC may expect. It is no longer a discussion, it's a point scoring row- where did the need for tin hats come in here? We might as well terminate- I can see it effectively going no further than point scoring.
I'm going to work now. Definitely no swingovers ever again! They're not safe. Not with passengers, and many pilots expecting to do something when ATC apparently expect something else. Something that may well not be possible (as at LHR).
I'm going to work now. Definitely no swingovers ever again! They're not safe. Not with passengers, and many pilots expecting to do something when ATC apparently expect something else. Something that may well not be possible (as at LHR).
Last edited by Rainboe; 6th Nov 2007 at 12:31.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U.K, I think.....
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate, would really like to know the definative, offical answer.
Raniboe is sort of right about the SOP thing, life is so so regimented now, we seem to spend half our flying duty making decisions base on the FDM and SOP requirements as opposed to using actual common sense/airmanship..PAH!!
A sidestep can be, even relatively close in, a perfectly safe and 'commercial' procedure, but unfortunately it really depends on the operators rules as well as the crew's and ATC's preferences. Ours are stable 1000" IFR, 500" if visual.
Its probably been debated elsewhere but why is 1000" the common 'stabalised by' point, and why the need to be lined up? If everything else is on the money (config, speed,thrust, ROD, pitch etc) a little visual manouvering (limited bank angle perhaps) should be perfectly safe, or am I missing something here?
Raniboe is sort of right about the SOP thing, life is so so regimented now, we seem to spend half our flying duty making decisions base on the FDM and SOP requirements as opposed to using actual common sense/airmanship..PAH!!
A sidestep can be, even relatively close in, a perfectly safe and 'commercial' procedure, but unfortunately it really depends on the operators rules as well as the crew's and ATC's preferences. Ours are stable 1000" IFR, 500" if visual.
Its probably been debated elsewhere but why is 1000" the common 'stabalised by' point, and why the need to be lined up? If everything else is on the money (config, speed,thrust, ROD, pitch etc) a little visual manouvering (limited bank angle perhaps) should be perfectly safe, or am I missing something here?
Well, it's not in MATS Pt 1 (according to the 36 results for "missed approach" that resulted!) Where else would it be in UK docs? Local Pt 2 procedures? Will trawl through PAN Ops when a spare moment arises.....