Swing over with missed approach

[Rainboe]

For UK ATC, we need to pause a moment and reread what has been said:
Gonzo said:

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

......implies that ATC may expect the plane to fly the MAP for the original runway- taken by many to mean that is what you should do.
Please reread MATS pt.2. as posted by Gonzo:

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.ad the quoted MATS pt 2 when the reference was found:

This is a warning to controllers that 'watch out- pilots in the event of a GA on a swingover approach may think they have to follow the original runway GA'! and 'Obviously this is not appropriate'.

It does not mean at all that pilots should follow the original GA as was implied by several posters- it is simply that the controller should be aware that pilots may do that! Therefore the controller should issue instructions to make it clear what to do.

Nowadays, pilots will reload the new runway into the FMs, giving the go-around procedure automatically, including tracking, as well as, if time, retuning the ILS. The thought process is 'quick, get the new runway in so the GA is set!' (I've been there several times). So despite getting a considerable amount of stick, I do not think I was incorrect in my assertion (at LHR at least), that it is impractical and unsafe, and not expected either, to fly the original GA. However, for reasons pointed out, many airlines have strict stabilised approach criteria, and those pilots know for a minor fuel or time saving, it is not worth the hassle of inviting follow up phone calls as to what the hell you were doing!

[Angel`s Playmate]

Very interesting topic, `coze that`s exactly what happened to me some time back in FRA !

(For all non-FRA users-missed 25L goes left turn/25R right turn )

We were on a 4 mile final ILS 25R when a heavy B747 started it`s takeoff roll. Same time a B 777 got line-up clearance behind the departing 74.
The TWR ATCO then switched to us " xyz 123 prepare for go around or you like to swing to 25L ?" We swung !

No heads down, no FMC punshy, no ILS retune , just flightdirectors off and land.
The app/missed for 25L had been briefed before as well, just in case App ctrl would have switched us some time on intermediate or so.

When we touched the 777 was still on it`s roll. Imagine we would have pulled up and turned back to 25R !

Happy ldgs
Angel

[NW1]

Rainboe:

Please note that the 1000' gate is a vertical profile gate and it does not require you to be aligned with the c/l. Similarly for the "hard" 500' gate.

Regarding lateral displacement, I think other fleets are similar to mine in that you are required to be aligned at 300'. It is up to you do judge accordingly, but these SOPs certainly permit a runway switch in VMC.

You will not receive a SESMA call for LOC deviation for a runway switch - it does happen and the SESMA rep will not waste the BALPA rep's (or the crews') time for a simple manoevre such as a r/w switch unless he needs feedback to help explain the trace or there were further issues - it is normally obvious from the trace that was what happened and this situation would be recorded as "Normal Operation".

Hope this shows that things are more sensible and leave you more free to make decisions than you thought?

[Rainboe]

Yes it will now. I was initially bewildered until I realised we were interpreting the ATC rules incorrectly. It is now understood you do not fly the original GA (at LHR at least). As for other stations like FRA, it will be in local regs, but I was at AMS this week and I don't recall seeing on the Jepps anything about this- it may be buried in the airport rules somewhere, but one doesn't normally burrow deeply into them.

We do have a hard rule of no turning from the 500' gate, and I would be unhappy doing it below 1000'. The days of airliners with people doing late base turns onto finals are gone, however good a pilot you may think you are. There are others who will be outside their ability zone, so I think it is a correct regulation.

[NW1]

<<We do have a hard rule of no turning from the 500' gate>>
Please see PM

[low n' slow]

Please note that the 1000' gate is a vertical profile gate and it does not require you to be aligned with the c/l. Similarly for the "hard" 500' gate.

NW1, This is hardly a general rule is it? This is up to the operator to specify or are you and Rainboe flying for the same operator? I know of several operators, including the one I fly for, that prohibits the pilots to perform any major turns below 1000 feet. In essence it requires the flighpath to be lined up with the landing runway in my case.

/LnS

[NW1]

LnS - You're absolutely right. I don't know why, but I was sure Rainboe & I worked for the same operator, I just looked at his public profile and realise this cannot be right, so I take back all my comments, apologise, & humbly withdraw.....

PS: RB, please ignore my PM

[BOAC]

prohibits the pilots to perform any major turns below 1000

- how do you fly circuits?

[411A]

The days of airliners with people doing late base turns onto finals are gone, however good a pilot you may think you are.

Ah, not exactly.
Smaller charter/scheduled operators still do these maneuvers, and why not...as their pilots are trained to proficiency, not the lowest common denominator.

[NW1]

<<Smaller charter/scheduled operators still do these maneuvers, and why not...>>
As does my operator. And I agree - why not? Can't understand the fuss - in the right circumstances and with reasonable airmanship these visual manoevres offer no more risk than any other approach. If an operator bans turning below 1000' and they if they fly to JFK how the heck do they fly the VOR approach 13L?

[L337]

Rainboe:
You said.

L337- we don't have such things as visual go-arounds in Europe- it's a US thing.

I posted:

In the USA, you would now be "visual". So you would carry out a visual go-around not the IFR go-around.

[Rainboe]

The visual GA is a sensible thing, but it is not a feature over here- as far as I am aware, the official instrument GA is the only option available, and that is what most of us would expect to fly.

The Unstabilised Approach Criteria are pretty rigid, and if not lined up and stabilised by 500', we must GA. No ifs, buts.

Reviewing this thread- I got a lot of stick and abuse from people who thought I was wrong. I asked for one posting to be removed as it implied I was not safe to be near. And blow me down, who would we like to be flying a sidestep GA on one runway when someone is taking off on the other?

[747dieseldude]

Didn't have the stamina to read through the whole thread, but:

The best analogy for this situation is circle to land manuever. I would go for the original approach g/a procedure.

Another thought: what is the new runway doesn't have an instrument procedure?

[Rainboe]

Unless specifically instructed, you would be wrong! Why bother to post if you can't be bothered to read the thread of 4 pages?

[bookworm]

It is now understood you do not fly the original GA (at LHR at least).

Understood by whom, exactly?

PANS-OPS says:

7.4 MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE WHILE CIRCLING
7.4.1 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.

This might not be "appropriate" for LHR ATC, but it's absolutely by the book to fly the GA for the instrument approach for which you have been cleared, which is presumably why LHR MATS Part 2 requires an explicit instruction to the contrary.

[hetfield]

What frightens me is:

- Pilots have different ecpectations at different airports.
- ATCOS have different expectations to pilots.....

[Rainboe]

Well Bookworm, there is a blurry line between Sidestep manoeuvres and Circling approaches, but it is important to try and differentiate one from the other so that one may execute the correct GA. For a sidestep,:

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.ad the quoted MATS pt 2 when the reference was found

Note the ATC manual does not refer to this as a 'Circling Approach'. It is a 'Visual Change of Landing Runway' A Circling Approach is when one must manoeuvre around an airfield horizontally, maintaining altitude, into the approach for a differently aligned runway. For this, the only effective GA is to turn for the original runway and execute the original GA, but this is a different animal to the Sidestep manoeuvre as the GA for that should be actioned on the new runway's procedures, as confirmed above.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Rainboe

Having taken a time out of this thread and without looking to lock horns again....

You have succesfully redirected this thread to a different subject, one of stabilised approaches.

ICAO does not make different rules for those operators that have on board monitoring.

ICAO states (and its in this thread) that you conduct the go around of the original runway if you are circling or sidestepping or whatever manouvre you wish to call it. You aim for the safe area of the overhead initially and then conduct the GA, you might not get to do it as no doubt ATC will intervene but whether you agree or not that is the procedure to follow (even at Hallowed LHR - as confirmed by a current LHR controller!!!)

Again I'll quote the original question:

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

In our minds lets replace the 27 numbers for others just to be sure we are NOT specifically talking about LHR.

Please answer the question! Somebody makes the valid point that the other runway might not even have a IFR GA !! Think lowest common denominator.

One more point, if you are including me in the people that gave you grief then once again I apologise however and I quote you:

You have no experience at airline ops at airports like LHR, so your answer is misleading.

Which sounded very pompous and arrogant (hence my later tone), I wont hold my breath for an apology nor do I particularly want one. I will take solace in the fact that even though the correct facts have been posted here you still wish to ignore them /your peers / LHR ATC and seem desperate to keep pursueing your incorrect theory by tring to make the facts fit.

You are obviously a very experienced guy (as detailed by you on another thread) so that commands a certain amount of respect, however the only thing to be confirmed by you in this thread is the age old adage that we are all still learning - perhaps even you.

[Intruder]

Rainboe:
I repeat- we are not talking circling approaches! ATC have switched you to another runway.

Waitaminutehere!

What is the official definition of a "swing over" or "swing across" in CAA/JAA jargon? There is no such official terminology in the US, and I have never heard it before.

In the US there are 4 possibilities for changing runways:

1) Change to the ILS for the new runway, if you are outside the FAF for the original one. In that case, missed approach would be for the new runway approach.

2) Circle to land on the new runway. In that case, the missed approach would be for the original approach.

3) Sidestep to the parallel runway. This is ONLY valid when the sidestep is published for the approach to the original runway. Missed approach is still for the original approach.

4) Visual approach to the parallel runway. Since you are now visual, missed approach will be per ATC (Tower) instructions.

[Intruder]

but it is important to try and differentiate one from the other so that one may execute the correct GA. For a sidestep,:
Quote:
Section 1 (3.3)
3.3.2 VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY

NO!!!

A sidestep is NOT a "visual change"! It is a specific clearance for a specific INSTRUMENT approach with specific INSTRUMENT minimums!

FAA AIM 5-4-19:

5-4-19. Side-step Maneuver

a. ATC may authorize a standard instrument approach procedure which serves either one of parallel runways that are separated by 1,200 feet or less followed by a straight-in landing on the adjacent runway.

b. Aircraft that will execute a side-step maneuver will be cleared for a specified approach procedure and landing on the adjacent parallel runway. Example, "cleared ILS runway 7 left approach, side-step to runway 7 right." Pilots are expected to commence the side-step maneuver as soon as possible after the runway or runway environment is in sight.

NOTESide-step minima are flown to a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) regardless of the approach authorized.

c. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.