What altitude will you fly after a missed visual approach?

[JAR]

How about the Circle to Land MHA(H) - safe and also tells you which sector is not approved for circling?

[9.G]

flying under EU OPS published missed approach
under FAA circuit altitude unless instructed otherwise by ATC.

Cheers

[bookworm]

flying under EU OPS published missed approach

Reference please? Or is that a company-specific thing for an EU-OPS operator?

I flew a missed approach after a visual approach in France a couple of days ago. I got directions (turn right downwind) but no altitude instruction, though in the mayhem that was Le Touquet on Sunday I imagine the controller had lost track of who was IFR and who was VFR.

[9.G]

bookworm, nice nickname btw. Well, it's the definition as such. Under Eu OPS visual approach is still part of IFR clearance thus published missed applies unless of course ATC instructs you otherwise. Under FAR it was quoted before visual isn't part of IFR any more. That's the whole difference.

Homo proponit, sed Deus disponit.

[bookworm]

Well, it's the definition as such. Under Eu OPS visual approach is still part of IFR clearance thus published missed applies unless of course ATC instructs you otherwise. Under FAR it was quoted before visual isn't part of IFR any more. That's the whole difference.

Neither assertion is correct, 9.G. A visual approach is an IFR approach under both FAA and EU OPS rules, and indeed under ICAO rules (PANS-ATM 6.5.3). But since an IAP may not even have been included in the clearance, there may be no "published missed approach" to fly in any jurisdiction. There may even be no IAP for the runway in question. If you can find something in EU OPS to the contrary, then cite it.

[OzExpat]

Well, I guess all will be well if you have to go missed approach in EU-land or FAA-land. That's all clear as mud to me. Anyway, if you're anywhere else in this whole wide, wonderful world, you probably better hope that your company has procedures that comply with the local AIP and legislative requirements.

If not, you just might end up spoiling your whole day!

[9.G]

FAA rules:

The FAA AIM states that, "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. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances."

Needless to comment methinks.

EU OPS rules:

"Visual approach". An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain.

this definition found in ALL weather OPS section applicable to IFR rules obviously. Therefore under EU OPS visual approach is part if IFR IAP clearance and doesn't covert the flight rules to VFR which would imply flying the circuit altitude. As we're all aware of once the IAP has been commenced it must be finished either in a successful landing or a execution of a missed approach procedure.

All this shouldn't preclude you from doing what's regarded by you as to rightful course of actions.

Cheerio

[Tmbstory]

Potteroomore:

Glad you learned from the incident, it is the story of life!.

My eyebrows rose at your comment about Kuching, it is not a backwater, I spent about 14 years flying from there and enjoyed every minute of it.

Regards

Tmb

[EpsilonVaz]

Flew a visual approach into a UK airfield yesterday, in the briefing to the Captain, I said "as it's a visual approach, if we need to go around we will climb to the circuit altitude and join downwind". His response "err.... well, let's follow the missed approach procedure for the ILS (which was out of service)." Amid some confusion and debate, I agreed.

[9.G]

But since an IAP may not even have been included in the clearance, there may be no "published missed approach" to fly in any jurisdiction. There may even be no IAP for the runway in question.

Bookworm, can you file a IFR flight plan to a destination lacking IAP? No commercial public flight, conducted with performance A aircraft, can be operated under VFR unless explicitly authorized by flight operations manager.
Regarding the approach clearance it's a absolute MUST to specify which approach procedure one is cleared for. Whatever IAP is declared to be in use as per ATIS must be followed unless cleared otherwise. Consequently MA for this particular procedure shall be followed. I totally agree the topic could be explained in a unambiguous way but it's not. Just my 2 cents.

Cheers

[DFC]

A visual approach is a procedure all of it's own. There is no defined obstacle clearance provided and the pilot is responsible for deciding what track and level to fly at to avoid obstacles. The flight is still IFR unless the pilot has cancelled the IFR flight plan.

The US, ICAO and European rules agree on this point.

If you have to execute a missed approach from a visual approach then you fly the missed approach appropriate to that visual approach - as agreed with ATC.

Unless you want a surprise you should ask in advance what ATC want in the event of a missed approach.

If you have discontinued one approach procedure in favour of another then one can not rely on the missed approach being the same. -

The first words of the Visual approach definition - It is a procedure.

A Circling procedure is something that is done after completing an IAP in order to line up with the landing runway. It has a defined containment area and one can not leave the IAP until within this area otherwise obstacle clearance may be compromised.

Unless specified otherwise, the missed approach for a circling is the IAP missed approach - initial turn towards the aerodrome overhead and follow the MAP.

--------

9.G,

Performance A simply relates to the aircraft performance and it's ability to avoid obstacles. The criteria apply in both VMC and IMC, VFR and IFR.

Anyone can file an IFR flight to an aerodrome with no IAP. The flight has to be visual at the IFR minimum safe level in order to descend for landing since it has no procedure for getting lower. This might make operations impractical but not impossible. Some countries require IFR to be cancelled before descending below the minimum level and others do not.

[Bruce Waddington]

9.G,

I found the same comments for a visual approach under EU rules, but no other.

So, my question is this.

If a visual approach is " An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain." would that not include the missed approach segment of the IAP ?

Comments ?

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

[9.G]

DFC, what is climb gradient requirement for performance class A aircraft departing VFR please? The answer is simply NONE avoid it by visual means that's it. All performance criteria are applicable to Instrument procedures for one very valid reason coz you don't see them thus one must meet performance. The title in the 4444 doc is Instrument procedure design not Visual procedure design. To underline it you have the choice of avoiding obstacles by visual means in case of EO. The whole idea of constructing the procedures is about making a blind IFR flight safe, nothing else. Obviously that's the reason why NO public commercial flight with performance class A aircraft can be operated under VFR unless authorized so. It's simply much safer to fly IFR.

if no IAP is available at the time of arrival IFR flight can be dispatched und IFR/VFR with the DFO consent and IFR portion must be canceled once safe landing can be assured by visual means. Good luck filing IFR flight plan to an airdrome with no published IFR procedures.

Cheers.

[9.G]

If a visual approach is " An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain." would that not include the missed approach segment of the IAP ?

Let's have a practical look at it, shall we? Under EU OPS min req. VIS for a visual 800 m not more than that. Can you fly a traffic pattern with this VIS? I have my doubts. The purpose of the visual approach is to be placed into a position preferably on final to complete IFR procedure by visual means. nothing else. It's different under FAA, don't ask me why. Under no cuircumstances do the flight rules change you still fly IFR. Aerodrome traffic pattern is a standard procedure for VFR flights not IFR. Under IFR you fly circle to land not a a traffic pattern consequently in case of a go around you don't just join a VFR circuit pattern but fly MA for IAP in use. Why should it be any different for a visual approach? Once again in MHO the key to understanding here is the applicable rules namely Instrument flight rules. In any case I stand to be corrected of course.
Cheers.

[DFC]

9.G,

A performance A aircraft from V1 on must be able to become airborne safely, clear all obstacles by the required margin and fly to a place where a safe landing can be made.

The only thing that being VMC gains the Performance A operator is the ability to determine track accurately and thus reduce the size of the area in which obstacles have to be cleared by the net minimum.

Under EU OPS min req. VIS for a visual 800 m not more than that. Can you fly a traffic pattern with this VIS? I have my doubts

The 800m is an arbitary figure. To make a visual approach then you have to be visual. You do not have to be VMC. It is not unusual to have a lovely clear sky with not a cloud in sight for 500 miles and the only thing stopping your visual approach is a bit of shallow fog at the aerodrome giving a reported visibility of 500m eventhough you can clearly see the landing threshold. Far safer to do the ILS in that case.

[john_tullamarine]

A performance A aircraft from V1 on must be able to become airborne safely, clear all obstacles by the required margin and fly to a place where a safe landing can be made.

Presuming all goes well. Theory versus the real world, I'm afraid. Reads better if you replace "must" by "probably should on most occasions".

The only thing that being VMC gains the Performance A operator is the ability to determine track accurately and thus reduce the size of the area in which obstacles have to be cleared by the net minimum.

Depends on the rules applicable. eg in Oz, above a specified MTOW, the takeoff has to be predicated on the presumption of IMC. In any case, with the usual jet pitch attitude, I suggest that it is folly to attempt to eyeball a critical departure.

[DFC]

In any case, with the usual jet pitch attitude, I suggest that it is folly to attempt to eyeball a critical departure.

I was never suggesting that a performance A aircraft would be required to visually avoid obstacles in the take-off funnel.

What I was trying to explain is that for example in the case of a departure with a track change of more than 15 degrees, the maximum width of the take-off funnel is 1200m if the pilot can acurately maintain the requried track and 1800m if they can't. In the absence of suitable navigation aids, a limitation of VMC can give the pilot the ability to maintain the required track visually so that the funnel is smaller.

Imagin a departure along a tight valley with a 30 degree turn 1nm after the runway end. No navigation aids. If IMC is permitted then the funnel expands until it is 1800m wide - taking in quite a bit of the hills each side of the valley. If the procedure is limited to VMC then the pilot can (a) determine the 1 mile point if there is a good landmark and accurately track the valley centerline thus reducing the final size of the funnel and the height of the obstacles that are in it.

Hope that explains my point better.

Agree with the statistical situation but ensuring that the net requirments are met makes it very unlikely that the gross performance will be less than the net - assuming all factors are as planned of course!!

[bookworm]

Bookworm, can you file a IFR flight plan to a destination lacking IAP?

Yes.

But I think you're missing the point of the sentences you quoted from me. Even if there is an IAP, it may not have been assigned before the clearance for a visual approach is given, and a visual approach may be made to a runway without an IAP.

The FAA AIM states that... Needless to comment methinks.

The comment should be obvious -- that a visual approach under FAA rules is conducted under IFR, not VFR.

[mad_jock]

There are a few departures out there which are VMC limited dependant on the aircraft.

The one that springs to mind is Vargar in the Faroes. If you don't have the single engine climb performance your only option is to fly it visually.

The 146's are quite happy to climb straight out into IMC but my TP has to fly down the valley remaining in contact with the ground and a bloody great rock at the end of the valley until I clear the end and make a turn to the south.

I disagree that a visual approach is an approach all of its own. You are still as such doing the initial cleared approach . Your just visually missing bits out and getting to exactly the same missed approach point. In a radar environment the missed approach maybe very different to the published purely for the reason they can and it helps the other traffic. In a procedural environment its the only thing the controller can pin his hat on to ensure separation. If you do decided to deviate from said missed approach you really are on your own for terrain avoidance and quite possibly endangering other aircraft because the procedural controller won't have a clue where you are in relation to their picture of traffic.

[Calvin Hops]

potteroo..........are you referring to a certain MAS TRE known as dynamite? Well, I learnt a lot from this unassuming gentleman especially during the period when we had chaos in the Malaysian skies when a fire destroyed the radar and atc equipment. Flying during that period reminded me of earlier times in PNG and Bourganville!