Swing over with missed approach

[hetfield]

@Intruder

Yes, the thread was about VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY.

regards

[Rainboe]

GSPOT- I like to know I am talking to experienced large jet pilots. Your profile says 'Cessna', which means to me a little high wing thing with a paddle on the front. If it's something heavier, perhaps you would put it in your profile? Then one would know if you were likely to have actually flown into London.

Despite the regulations being large, there are still grey areas. One is the narrow gap between Circling and Sidestep manoeuvres. It takes common sense to assess one from the other. It is not common sense, for example, at LHR to Sidestep, then fly the original GA, taking you over the airport to the other side and overhead what may be traffic taking off from the runway you are not using. Therefore in this, and many other examples, a Circling GA is plainly not common sense- as evidenced by the admission in the MATS regulations that 'this is obviously not a good idea.... so the controller should be prepared for it'. People can argue to the last full stop that it is- it is daft. If other places have local regulations in place, then that's clear.

Intruder has made a clear post with the most sensible set of rules I have see:

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.

So is it sensible for a pilot to assume that in (4) he should do, what would be utterly stupid and fly the original GA, leading a pilot to execute a 90 degree turn overhead LHR, crossing over the other runway turning through 90 degrees, for example. Follow most people's guidance here, and that is what they think he should do. It's a great hole in UK ATC regulations, and it is important because LHR is so overloaded sometimes you literally cannot get a word in to get instructions for a GA, and the controllers instructions may be drowned out by a whistle as 2 other people try and get a word in.

[bookworm]

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.

There are only three sorts of approaches for IFR flights contemplated by PANS-OPS and PANS-ATM:

1) A straight in instrument approach where the landing runway is the instrument runway

2) An instrument approach followed by visual circling where the landing runway is not the instrument runway

3) A visual approach

There is no such thing as a "Sidestep manoeuvre". Your action in the event of a missed approach will depend on the nature of your clearance.

1) If the clearance is for an instrument approach for the new runway ("cleared ILS approach 27L") then you fly in accordance with the new IAP. This is clearly only possible if the landing runway (27L here) is an instrument runway, which is not, as far as I know, a prerequisite for the manoeuvre that hetfield asked the original question about. It is hard to see how such a clearance would be offered and/or accepted at anything other than range long enough to allow the crew to rebrief. I don't believe the "swing overs" under discussion fall into this category.

2) If the modification of the clearance is to land on a different runway, I can see no difference between this and a visual manoeuvring (circling) procedure, and the missed approach for that procedure sould be followed. Spitoon and I have already quoted that, and it consists, ultimately, of flying the missed approach for the original instrument runway.

3) If the modification of the clearance is for a visual approach to a different runway, there is no provision for an instrument missed approach. The aircraft is expected to remain visual.

According to Intruder's description, the FAA defines a fourth category, the sidestep, which appears to be substantially the same as visual manoeuvring (circling) but possibly with lower minima.

Either local procedures (e.g. EHAM) or specific instructions from ATC can override these ICAO defaults. Heathrow MATS Pt 2 clearly requires the latter, an explicit set of instructions to follow.

While it is undoubtedly prudent to use one's experience and awareness of ATC procedures to build an expectation of what may be required by explicit instruction at particular airports, in general the PANS-OPS procedures need to be followed, and I think that's what hetfield was asking.

[Intruder]

Hetfield
Yes, the thread was about VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY.

That was not clear at all, which is why I asked for the definition of "swing over."
If you are flying a visual approach to a different runway than that to which you started the initial approach, the missed approach instructions for that instrument approach no longer apply. You must get instructions from ATC, either at the time of the clearance or from Tower when you start the missed approach.

Rainboe
So is it sensible for a pilot to assume that in (4) he should do, what would be utterly stupid and fly the original GA, leading a pilot to execute a 90 degree turn overhead LHR, crossing over the other runway turning through 90 degrees, for example.

No, and nowhere did I suggest it. Per FAA AIM 5-4-22.e:

e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower.

The FAA clearly places the responsibility on ATC (Tower) to provide missed approach instructions. If Tower is momentarily busy, it would be appropriate to climb on runway heading to 800' AGL (or higher if terrain dictates) while waiting for Tower to issue the isntructions. I suspect that once the Tower controller sees an approaching airplane start to climb and/or hears the "go around" report, he will make it a priority to communicate with that airplane.

Specifically at LHR, a prudent alternative while awaiting ATC instructions would be to follow the Jepp 11-5 or 11-6 page, "Procedures to follow in the event of radio failure following a missed approach." Start the procedure for the runway to which the FINAL approach to intended landing was made.

[bookworm]

That was not clear at all, which is why I asked for the definition of "swing over."
If you are flying a visual approach to a different runway...

Intruder

I think this may be an unhelpful a terminology difference. The ICAO term is "visual manoeuvring (circling)" for what is called a "circling approach" in the US. That is not the same as a "visual approach". Both would, at least in my estimation, be construed as VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY for the purpose of hetfield's question.

It appears that the FAA terminology and procedures, which you have explained with great clarity, are much easier to interpret to answer hetfield's question.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Rainboe, I will leave the willy waving to you. You are on of the very few users on here that feel the need to actually document your experience levels in black and white to help prove your point, others don't feel the need to

You assumed the biggest thing I fly is a Cessna 152, quite happy barrelling along at FL450 and .80 thankyou very much. (Shame its not at the same time)

Assumptions dont help the debate, Most people assume that your working life consists of only flying four sectors a month and only do two landings stumbling between radar environments disengaging the AP at 200ft before landing on your 10000ft runway - not me......

And for the last time please forget about LHR!!!!!

Please answer the original question for gods sake without mentioning a large two runway London Airport or Flight monitoring

[BOAC]

Is there any chance of forgetting about 'circling approaches' here as the original question did not involve those, and they are really only serving to confuse?

I assume Hetfield asks about LATE changes to landing runway, which I have experienced (and either accepted or declined) at several airfields in my time. The USA IFR clearance ILS 07R with sidestep to 07L would be easier to solve as there would be time to look at any G/A for 07L. With the later change I have always assumed my G/A would be straight ahead and then into the circuit unless there is an ATC specified alternative. since I am flying a purely visual manoeuvre.

It is MOST UNWISE and very poor airmanship to go head down and start pushing FMC buttons for a runway change at a late stage and I have seen command and line checks failed for that.

[bookworm]

Is there any chance of forgetting about 'circling approaches' here as the original question did not involve those, and they are really only serving to confuse?

I don't agree BOAC. IAP to one runway, landing on another is a circling approach.

[BOAC]

Not on this side of the pond! Runway directions need to be at least 30 deg apart to qualify.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

I think its fair to say that it does depend on conditions as to what we would do on any given day at any airport.

BOAC you are quite correct this is a classic sim gotcha especiialy when training with US instructors for JAA ratings, you achieve circling minima with the RW environment in sight and commence the circle, 1/2 way around they ratchet down the ceiling and see what happens.

IN the US it is as clear cut as intruders post, maybe not so crystal over here.....

I appreciate the point about forgeting about circling as the original question wasn't about that and I am struggling to conceive a situation where a "sidesteppy" kind of visual procedeure woud be required in the UK, maybe a blocked 24R at MAN with a stiff westerly and good viz under low cloud??


Getting back to the original question, there must be a catch all directive for all airports from ICAO to prevent there being as many different concepts about missed approaches after "repositioning" than Pilots, having seen the discussion, I think that point has been cleared up, local exemptions to standard procedure can be published and notes made on the Jepps as required or indeed ATC forewarned that where local procedures or exemptions are not present then anticipate the problem and control the air traffic accordingly.

[Intruder]

The ICAO term is "visual manoeuvring (circling)" for what is called a "circling approach" in the US. That is not the same as a "visual approach". Both would, at least in my estimation, be construed as VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY for the purpose of hetfield's question.

Actually, that is not the case.
A circling approach is relatively well defined. A clearance is given for a specific approach, e.g., "Cleared VOR 13 Approach, circle to land Rwy 18." In that case the missed approach procedures for the VOR 13 Approach are still in effect.
In a late-breaking "Do you want 25L instead of 24R?" situation (assuming VMC), the approach to 24R is terminated, and a visual approach to 25L is commenced from that point. There is NO clearance to "intercept ILS final for 25L" or similar, therefore it is a VISUAL approach from the point it is accepted, and there is no defined missed approach procedure (excepting the airport-specific cases such as the general lost comm procedures for LHR).
Again, it is ALWAYS the responsibility of ATC to provide specific missed approach instructions in the latter case, and in the former case if they do NOT want you to do the missed approach per the VOR 13 procedure.

[bookworm]

Not on this side of the pond! Runway directions need to be at least 30 deg apart to qualify.

I still don't agree.

PANS-OPS Vol 2 Part I Section 4 Ch 5
5.2.3 Circling approach
The circling approach contains the visual phase of flight after completing an instrument approach, to bring an aircraft into position for landing on a runway that for operational reasons is not suitably located for straight-in approach. In addition, when the final approach track alignment or the descent gradient does not meet the criteria for a straight-in landing, only a circling approach shall be authorized and the track alignment should ideally he made to the centre of the landing area.

If the landing runway direction is more than 30 degrees off the IAP runway direction, the final approach track alignment criteria are not met and only circling approaches are permitted. But that doesn't mean that it's the only circumstance in which a circling approach is required.

In the case of a parallel landing runway separated by more than 150 m, the following criterion comes into play:

5.2.2.2 Final approach with track not intersecting the extended runway centre line. A final approach which does not intersect the extended centre line of the runway (theta equal to or less than 5 degrees) may also he established, provided such track lies within 150 m laterally of the extended runway centre line at a distance of 1 400 m outward from the runway threshold (see Figure 1-4-5-1).

The criterion is clearly not met, and the only approach permitted to the parallel runway is a circling approach.

A swingover manoeuvre is either a circling approach or a visual approach.

[bookworm]

Actually, that is not the case.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing. The swingover can be implemented in two ways: you describe them well, though the first example (circling approach) would serve the purposes of the question better if it were "Cleared VOR 13R Approach, circle to land Rwy 13L." The second (visual approach) would entail "cleared visual approach 13L" at some point on the 13R approach.

I suspect that rarely is either phraseology used explicitly, otherwise the answer to hetfield's question would be obvious, wouldn't it? More likely it sounds like:

"Bigbird 123 can you accept 13L"
"Affirm, Bigbird 123"
"Bigbird 123 runway 13L cleared to land"

Which case is that? If it's a visual approach, what precautions have been taken to ensure "that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed", which is a requirement of the visual approach. The pilot has not explicitly accepted a visual approach.

[Loose rivets]

I moved over from left to right at about 300' at LHR. No problem as it was a Viscount (and it was c1965.)

The landing ahead of us was throwing rubber off the runway in vast ribbons. For all the world, they looked as if they were coming up to our height!

[Intruder]

"Bigbird 123 can you accept 13L"
"Affirm, Bigbird 123"
"Bigbird 123 runway 13L cleared to land"
Which case is that? If it's a visual approach, what precautions have been taken to ensure "that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed", which is a requirement of the visual approach. The pilot has not explicitly accepted a visual approach.

I contend that it is abandoning the published instrument approach for a visual approach. Since we don't know that circling minimums are published for the approach in question, or that circling is allowed for the approach, I believe you are switching from one approach to another.

Also, it is poor ATC terminology, and serves to cause the type of confusion being discussed here.

You accepted a visual approach when you said "Affirm." Since you were not cleared for an instrument approach to the new runway, the ATC controller must assume you have the airport and new runway in sight. Also, the OP clarified that he was indeed asking about a visual change of runway.

If you want to contend that it is a circling approach from the original instrument approach procedure (assuming it has published circling minimums), then you must accept that the published missed approach procedure applies unless specifically instructed otherwise by ATC.

[bookworm]

I contend that it is abandoning the published instrument approach for a visual approach.

OK. I think your assumption that the aircraft forgoes the option of an instrument go-around merely by accepting that it can land on a different runway is verging on unreasonable. In my scenario, it may not even be able to see the airport at the moment of that exchange.

Also, it is poor ATC terminology, and serves to cause the type of confusion being discussed here.

I agree. That's really at the heart of the thread, though, isn't it? If ATC makes the type of clearance explicit, you know what to do for the missed. Perhaps the lesson from this thread for ATC is to make the type of approach quite explicit(?).

Also, the OP clarified that he was indeed asking about a visual change of runway.

But a circling approach (and the sidestep you described) is a visual procedure. If you don't get the appropriate visual reference by MDA, you can't continue with the circling/sidestep. If ATC could always wait until the aircraft was visual with the airport before issuing a visual approach to another runway, we'd have no need in general for circling approaches or sidesteps. You'd just wait until they'd broken out on the 13 approach and then clear them for a visual approach for 18. So the circling approach caters for a situation in which you know well in advance that you want the aircraft to land on a different runway.

BTW, can you give an example of a published sidestep, please? I don't think I've seen one.

[Intruder]

For the sidestep, see Anchorage (PANC) ILS or LOC DME Rwy 7R.

Now, assume Approach or Tower asks you as above, "Can you accept 13L," as you are inbound on the VOR/LOC/ILS?NDB 13R approach. You are currently IMC. How can you accept the change in runway if you cannot see it? How do you know you will be in a position to make a normal approach and landing on 13L after you break out? In that case, the ONLY way to land on 13L is to continue on the 13R approach until you break out, and then and circle to land on 13L IF AND ONLY IF you break out above circling minimums. If there are no circling minimums published for that 13R approach, you CANNOT land on 13L from that approach because it is NOT AUTHORIZED! If you have to go around FOR ANY REASON, you are obligated to follow the missed approach procedures for the 13R approach unless instructed otherwise by ATC. PERIOD!

OTOH, if you are VMC when offered the change of runway, and you accept, you SHOULD be cleared for a visual approach to 13L. You abandon the VOR/LOC/ILS/NDB approach to 13R in favor of a visual approach to 13L.

I believe anything other than a clearance for a "visual approach" or "circle to land" (or "sidestep" where appropriate) is a mistake in ATC clearance. If you receive only the "Cleared to land" as above, you should respond with something like, "Understand cleared visual approach (or circle to land) and cleared to land 13 LEFT." If ATC has something else in mind, it is now their responsibility to correct your misunderstanding.

[bookworm]

(Thanks for the example.)

I think you summarize it perfectly.

If ATC knows that a landing on 13L would be preferable from the outset, and 13R has circling minima published (most UK IAPs do have circling minima, BTW), I would have thought that a clearance for the "ILS 13R circle to land 13L" would offer least surprise for the crew.

[Pilot Pete]

Rainboe

The days of airliners with people doing late base turns onto finals are gone

Incorrect. Try Samos for one, where the 90 degree offset VOR approach requires a visual manoeuvre which has you rolling out in final at 400ft. Or how about Madeira runway 05? Following the curved lead in lights has you lined up at 313ft above the threshold. Or the other end, where you remain left of the extended centreline literally until just before touchdown due to terrain proximity. Just because Big Airways go to mainly big airfields doesn't mean everyone else only does this.

Bookworm

There is no such thing as a "Sidestep manoeuvre".

Better tell Jepp and the Spanish then as Gran Canaria has a ILS to 03L with ILS minima and LOC only to SIDESTEP to 03R minima published.......

PP

[G-SPOTs Lost]

PP Good point

BA go to Nice - Blue Bay (cant remember the numbers ) for R22 is fairly sporting, watched in awe from Kilo (abeam the 22 numbers) when a 777 did it (Very well too!).