Swing over with missed approach
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
<<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>>
Gonzo- please quote reference. Can this go in the ATC forum? It seems pretty relevant to ops today.
Gonzo- please quote reference. Can this go in the ATC forum? It seems pretty relevant to ops today.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In every airport, for any approach (not talking about side step) you will fly the published missed apporach unless the atc gives you a diferent instruction... It happened once to me that I was making an ILS approach for a given runway and then was souposed to cirlce to the oposite runway, when we started to circle the atc said " In case of go around, fly heading 180 and climb 3000..." Of course, the atc would have expected us to make a missed approach for the original approach, that's why he made sure we wouldn't by giving us a diferent instruction...
If for some reason it's unsafe to do so in heathrow (when side steping), it's expectable that all controlers are told to give such instructions in time... I think that if your books say that you would expect all pilots to fly the original missed approach, then, that should be the correct proc. If making the missed approach for the runway you'r steping to was the correct and standard procedure, which applyed to every airport, then the atc controllers at heathrow wouldn't be instructed to promptly give go around instructions to "side steping" aircraft...
What do you think??
If for some reason it's unsafe to do so in heathrow (when side steping), it's expectable that all controlers are told to give such instructions in time... I think that if your books say that you would expect all pilots to fly the original missed approach, then, that should be the correct proc. If making the missed approach for the runway you'r steping to was the correct and standard procedure, which applyed to every airport, then the atc controllers at heathrow wouldn't be instructed to promptly give go around instructions to "side steping" aircraft...
What do you think??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@downsouth
I can tell you how it works at EDDF with 25L/R.
A swingover from 25L to 25R is mostly offered as "are you interested in 25R?"
If confirmed, the ATCO just clears you to do so. That's it.
Now the confusion is perfect, cause I always thought and briefed th M/A for the runway my wheels will be on.....
I can tell you how it works at EDDF with 25L/R.
A swingover from 25L to 25R is mostly offered as "are you interested in 25R?"
If confirmed, the ATCO just clears you to do so. That's it.
Now the confusion is perfect, cause I always thought and briefed th M/A for the runway my wheels will be on.....
...but in our Heathrow Manual of Air Traffic Services...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Airport MATS pt.2.
Section 1 (3.3)
3.3.2 VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY
Controllers must be aware that any aircraft that is instructed to visually switch to an alternate runway, in the event of a missed approach, may expect to follow the instrument missed approach procedure for the original runway. Obviously this is not appropriate, therefore, if the aircraft is subsequently instructed to execute a missed approach, the procedure used must be included in the instruction.
This is not the standard international procedure, therefore controllers must place particular emphasis on ensuring that traffic making a visual approach will, if the need arises, execute the correct missed approach.
[my bolding]
Section 1 (3.3)
3.3.2 VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY
Controllers must be aware that any aircraft that is instructed to visually switch to an alternate runway, in the event of a missed approach, may expect to follow the instrument missed approach procedure for the original runway. Obviously this is not appropriate, therefore, if the aircraft is subsequently instructed to execute a missed approach, the procedure used must be included in the instruction.
This is not the standard international procedure, therefore controllers must place particular emphasis on ensuring that traffic making a visual approach will, if the need arises, execute the correct missed approach.
[my bolding]
Obviously this is not appropriate, therefore, if the aircraft is subsequently instructed to execute a missed approach, the procedure used must be included in the instruction.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Hotel lobby, worldwide
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I am aware EHAM is the exception to the rule. At EHAM you have to fly the missed approach of the landing runway. I will start looking for it, it is published in (I think) the Dutch AIP.
As we used to operate in and out of EHAM, with their sometimes close to impossible "swing overs" often, this came up at some point.
I will start looking but it has been a while.
GC
As we used to operate in and out of EHAM, with their sometimes close to impossible "swing overs" often, this came up at some point.
I will start looking but it has been a while.
GC
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
The 1000 feet was/is used to accomodate less than desirable skills levels...and by this I refer to junior First Officers as well as some Captains that are having a bad hair day
OTOH, small airline companies are not necessarily so constrained, and even with a large transport jet such as the L1011 that I fly, close in maneuvering if done properly is perfectly safe...and very rewarding from a handling perspective, especially for folks who enjoy hand flying the aeroplane, yours truly included.
And yes, we still do circling approaches, right down to the lowest minima possible, for a category D aircraft.
Handling skills....use 'em or lose 'em.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From a controller's perspective I would consider - and it is the assumption I made with my earlier post - a swing-over (or any similar manoeuvre) to be circling after an instrument approach. That is to say, the change to another landing runway is made visually and not a change to the ILS etc. nominated by ATC (in the latter case I would consider it to be an instrument approach to that other runway with the associated missed approach flown if it is necessary). The fact that certain aircraft operators have internal SOPs or flight profile monitoring systems that prevent pilots from accepting the manoeuvre is irrelevant to the main question here.
Reference to ICAO PANS-OPS (although I must admit that I'm not certain that it is the latest edition) includes the statement
This does not strictly describe a swing-over but it is the closest I can find. If one accepts that a swing-over is circling, then the definitive answer seems to be given by PANS-OPS - reproduced below:
If, on the other hand, one does not accept a swing-over to be circling after an instrument approach, please disregard all the above!
Reference to ICAO PANS-OPS (although I must admit that I'm not certain that it is the latest edition) includes the statement
Visual manoeuvring (circling) is the term used to describe the phase of flight after an instrument approach has been completed. It brings the aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for straight-in approach, i.e. one where the criteria for alignment or descent gradient cannot be met.
MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE WHILE CIRCLING
If visual reference is lost while circling to land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed. The pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome. At this point, the pilot will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.
The circling manoeuvre may he carried out in more than one direction. For this reason, different patterns are required to establish the aircraft on the prescribed missed approach course depending on its position at the time visual reference is lost.
If visual reference is lost while circling to land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed. The pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome. At this point, the pilot will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.
The circling manoeuvre may he carried out in more than one direction. For this reason, different patterns are required to establish the aircraft on the prescribed missed approach course depending on its position at the time visual reference is lost.
Last edited by Spitoon; 6th Nov 2007 at 15:32. Reason: Edited for spilling
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Orp Tolip
and why the need to be lined up?
Most operators require 'wings level' by around 400' which copes with most places.
As far as I am aware EHAM is the exception to the rule.
AD 2.22 EHAM
2.8.3 Missed approach while circling to land (contrary to ICAO doc. 8168 (PANS-OPS))
* inform ATC and
* turn to the intended landing runway, intercept the runway track MAG of that runway while climbing to 2000 ft AMSL.
Like Spitoon I cannot see how a swing-over would fit with any ICAO procedure other than VM(C).
Presumably Rainboe's employer doesn't permit VM(C) as there would be a lot of "phone calls" due to full-scale ILS deviations.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting topic. I went into the AIM, 5-4-19 "Sidestep Maneuver" and 5-4-21 "Missed Approach". Neither one addresses the issue specifically. Logic would dictate, however, that one would need to fly the missed for that new runway, as it is likely designed to keep you out of someone's way, which the missed for the original runway might not.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about it A/C A approaching 27L was offered a "swing" to 27R and A/C approaching 27R was offered a "swing" to 27L. The 27L missed app procedure is to turn left and the 27R one is to turn right.
If they follow the missed app procedure for the runway they were initially cleared to approach then at some point they'd be on a collision course.
L Met
If they follow the missed app procedure for the runway they were initially cleared to approach then at some point they'd be on a collision course.
L Met
Guest
Posts: n/a
....at some point they'd be on a collision course.
But, hey, if you want to carry on thinking up disaster scenarios that are incredibly unlikely to arise in the real world please feel free (but I'd prefer it if you did it on your own time). I guess you must be a reporter or TV producer....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Europe-the sunshine side
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As we may change the FMC selected rwy fast enaugh, we will have also the go-around route selected on FMC. After selecting 'go-around' next step will be to follow the selected route,which is for the new rwy.
I've been asking many of my coleagues what will they do in case of go-around...most common answer was 'I'll ask for vectors". Next answer was 'follow the go-around for new assigned rwy'...
One of the reasons was , as said before, at many airports with parallel rwys, the go-arounds are divergent, so as to avoid collision risk.
And if you expect us to follow the initial rwy go-around procedure,and we follow the new assigned rwy procedure, you think you will always be able to make yourself heard and understood fast enaugh over the radio?
I've personally seen a scary situation with two ,same company, aircrafts when one did a late take-off and the other one did a go-around above the previous one. The controller had no chance to make itself understood by the pilots, as both crews were fully occupied, and had also, almost the same callsigns. We just stood and watched...hopefully god was also watching that day.
So,try to make it simple..and safer.No side step...or issue the go-around instructions with the side-step clearance.
I've been asking many of my coleagues what will they do in case of go-around...most common answer was 'I'll ask for vectors". Next answer was 'follow the go-around for new assigned rwy'...
One of the reasons was , as said before, at many airports with parallel rwys, the go-arounds are divergent, so as to avoid collision risk.
And if you expect us to follow the initial rwy go-around procedure,and we follow the new assigned rwy procedure, you think you will always be able to make yourself heard and understood fast enaugh over the radio?
I've personally seen a scary situation with two ,same company, aircrafts when one did a late take-off and the other one did a go-around above the previous one. The controller had no chance to make itself understood by the pilots, as both crews were fully occupied, and had also, almost the same callsigns. We just stood and watched...hopefully god was also watching that day.
So,try to make it simple..and safer.No side step...or issue the go-around instructions with the side-step clearance.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot ever foresee a situation where we'd want you to follow the old missed approach, hence we would always give you appropriate instructions.
I think mandating that you have to follow the new runway's missed approach procedure is unworkable, as some switches happen very late, within four miles. Are flight crew really going to brief the new missed approach procedure in that time?
What we expect, and what we want (and then what happens) are two very different things.
We expect you to follow the old runway's procedure, because that is the 'worst case scenario', so that we (ATC) do not get complacent and believe you will follow the new runway's procedure.
@londonmet, the point is that ATC would act in your case. As it stands, a normal missed approach from 27L does not separate you from 27R departures. ATC still has to act to separate you. So a similarly serious situation could happen in normal ops, if ATC don't intervene...as we are all taught to do.
I think mandating that you have to follow the new runway's missed approach procedure is unworkable, as some switches happen very late, within four miles. Are flight crew really going to brief the new missed approach procedure in that time?
What we expect, and what we want (and then what happens) are two very different things.
We expect you to follow the old runway's procedure, because that is the 'worst case scenario', so that we (ATC) do not get complacent and believe you will follow the new runway's procedure.
@londonmet, the point is that ATC would act in your case. As it stands, a normal missed approach from 27L does not separate you from 27R departures. ATC still has to act to separate you. So a similarly serious situation could happen in normal ops, if ATC don't intervene...as we are all taught to do.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to disillusion anyone but with many go-around procedures ATC must act pretty quick to resolve a future conflict - that's just a fact of life with current traffic levels.
But, hey, if you want to carry on thinking up disaster scenarios that are incredibly unlikely to arise in the real world please feel free (but I'd prefer it if you did it on your own time). I guess you must be a reporter or TV producer....
But, hey, if you want to carry on thinking up disaster scenarios that are incredibly unlikely to arise in the real world please feel free (but I'd prefer it if you did it on your own time). I guess you must be a reporter or TV producer....
