What altitude will you fly after a missed visual approach?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are still as such doing the initial cleared approach
There is no obstacle clearance requriements and no protected area and no missed approach point and no missed approach procedure for a visual approach.
How can you have a publsied missed approach procedure for a procedure that is not published?
Here is a good example - The weather is CAVOK. You are being vectored for the ILS 23R at Manchester. While 5nm north of the field You request and are cleared for a visual approach number 1. Just after that, the ILS goes off the air. Do you now have a problem? How are you going to proceed since under your personal rule, you are still flying the ILS, you simply have the ability to cut some corners and are still flying the ILS IAP?
If I am flying a visual approach, I really don't care if all the approach aids fail. After all, I am already visual and I do not need them to guide me to a point where I can continue visually - which after all is the whoe reason for an IAP.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have flown a lot of ILS with circle to land on opposite runway recently and have noticed confusion from pilots when at VMC(OCA) (CIRCLE TO LAND MINIMA). At minima they instictively want to climb to VFR Circuit height rather than maintain the minima specified for the circling approach. In weather this may take you back into cloud and no longer able to maintain VMC. They state that it feels weird to be flying below normal traffic pattern.
If unable to maintain VMC while circling then initiate the missed approach for the ILS that you flew prior to circling whilst staying within the protected area with runway and turning towards the runway.
That's my understanding and if you break off at normal traffic pattern height there is no point in having a lower circling minima specified and the chances are higher that you will not maintain VMC so what was the point ?
If unable to maintain VMC while circling then initiate the missed approach for the ILS that you flew prior to circling whilst staying within the protected area with runway and turning towards the runway.
That's my understanding and if you break off at normal traffic pattern height there is no point in having a lower circling minima specified and the chances are higher that you will not maintain VMC so what was the point ?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure how we got onto VFR departures, but back to topic!
You can arrive in a circuit pattern at an airfield at any height you choose (subject to company and local regs and safety) and from any direction as long as:-
a) It is safe
b) Everyone, inside and outside the cockpit who needs to know what you are doing does.
The g/a from a visual approach would 'normally' be into a further visual circuit.
The height for a visual circuit is likewise yours to choose subject to the above. I once watched RAM at GMMN flying round the pattern at 500' and quite enjoying it!
You can arrive in a circuit pattern at an airfield at any height you choose (subject to company and local regs and safety) and from any direction as long as:-
a) It is safe
b) Everyone, inside and outside the cockpit who needs to know what you are doing does.
The g/a from a visual approach would 'normally' be into a further visual circuit.
The height for a visual circuit is likewise yours to choose subject to the above. I once watched RAM at GMMN flying round the pattern at 500' and quite enjoying it!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this ref in my CATS ATPL study guide hope it helps clarify: 
Key point is that there is s published minimum alt/height for visual circling
Descent below MDA/H should not be made until:
• visual reference has been established and can be maintained;
• the pilot has the landing threshold in sight; and
• the required obstacle clearance can be maintained and the aircraft is in a position to carry out a landing.A circling approach is a visual flight manoeuvre. Each circling situation is different because of variables such as runway layout, final approach track, wind velocity and meteorological conditions. Therefore, there can be no single procedure designed that will cater for conducting a circling approach in every situation. After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment (i.e., the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway) should be kept in sight while at MDA/H for 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. It is expected that the pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome where he will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.As the circling manoeuvre may be accomplished in more than one direction, different patterns will be required to establish the aircraft on the prescribed missed approach course depending on its position at the time visual reference is lost.
Key point is that there is s published minimum alt/height for visual circling
Descent below MDA/H should not be made until:
• visual reference has been established and can be maintained;
• the pilot has the landing threshold in sight; and
• the required obstacle clearance can be maintained and the aircraft is in a position to carry out a landing.A circling approach is a visual flight manoeuvre. Each circling situation is different because of variables such as runway layout, final approach track, wind velocity and meteorological conditions. Therefore, there can be no single procedure designed that will cater for conducting a circling approach in every situation. After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment (i.e., the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway) should be kept in sight while at MDA/H for 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. It is expected that the pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome where he will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.As the circling manoeuvre may be accomplished in more than one direction, different patterns will be required to establish the aircraft on the prescribed missed approach course depending on its position at the time visual reference is lost.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it hillarious that at Man you would hook it into a visual circuit. I have actually been in that very situation of having a visual missed approach at Man on that very runway due to Air France doing there usual and stuffing up everyone crossing the active. Went around from 500ft followed the ILS missed approach got handed over to radar and vectored in for another go. Off 23R with a left circuit you would get right in the way of 23L out bounds. If you did a right hand circuit appart from the noise complaints you would probarly get it in the ear because half of the trafford center would phone the police thinking that another 9/11 was kicking off.
I don't think a bunch of pilots are going to decide this, I suspect we are going to have to get some ATC input and I suspect that it will be very different depending which country they are from.
And I can now see why so many old but not bold skipper's will refuse point blank to do a visual approach.
I don't think a bunch of pilots are going to decide this, I suspect we are going to have to get some ATC input and I suspect that it will be very different depending which country they are from.
And I can now see why so many old but not bold skipper's will refuse point blank to do a visual approach.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mj
And I can now see why so many old but not bold skipper's will refuse point blank to do a visual approach.
and are now in doubt about their potential do one - a coupled ILS is so much easier, isn't it?
I don't see how you can justify following the missed approach of the ILS for that runway if the ILS is U/S
In the circumstance raised above where you've been vectored for an ILS approach, chosen to finish visually and then the ILS goes off the air during the visual segment; if part of the missed approach procedure is dependent on the ILS DME, for example, I would probably ask for vectors from ATC. If the missed approach didn't depend on any element of the ILS, but instead on other navigation aids, we would probably just fly it as briefed.
At my home base we do visual approaches regularly, and at no point do we ever brief a different missed approach for a visual completion than for following the ILS all the way down. The missed approach altitude is set the same, and the procedure in the FMGC is unchanged from the missed approach for the in-use instrument procedure.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think discussion about IAPs is maybe a moot point because there are many different ways that you may come to be flying a visual approach, ie breaking off from an ILS, joining downwind/crosswind/base or braking off overhead on an NDB etc.
At the end of the day common sense must prevail regardless of the ICAO/FAA rules and as we see here by this discussion they are not very clear.
Look at where you are, would I turn downwind at CCT height if going missed from 27 at Le Bourget? No Paris City to the left and CDG to the right! (Would I fly a visual App at Le Bourget probably not!)
In less congested airspace, on a nice day I certainly would fly a visual approach to save time/fuel etc. To ATC I might use the phrase "Confirm circuit height and direction in the event of a go around?" This gives them the opportunity to think about what they might want you to do in the event of a missed. 90% of the time they will say something like "maintain 1500' RH pattern" or similar.
At the end of the day common sense must prevail regardless of the ICAO/FAA rules and as we see here by this discussion they are not very clear.
Look at where you are, would I turn downwind at CCT height if going missed from 27 at Le Bourget? No Paris City to the left and CDG to the right! (Would I fly a visual App at Le Bourget probably not!)
In less congested airspace, on a nice day I certainly would fly a visual approach to save time/fuel etc. To ATC I might use the phrase "Confirm circuit height and direction in the event of a go around?" This gives them the opportunity to think about what they might want you to do in the event of a missed. 90% of the time they will say something like "maintain 1500' RH pattern" or similar.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cut the long story short I avoid flying visual approaches as much as I can for the all aforesaid reasons. In case needed clear instructions are requested for a go around. Methinks ATC fellas might put an end to the debate with a conclusive answer.
DFC, J.T has nailed it. My understanding of performance class A aircraft under EU OPS is to be assumed using IFR based on PANS OPS design criterion. As mentioned before certain aerodromes might impose additional minima like VIS ceiling (not VFR) and a clear pictorial and written procedures must be made available to the crew. This thesis is simply confirmed by a restriction imposed by operators AOC annexes and part A restriction to fly VFR.
Regardless of whatever IAP you fly, whenever visual cues are acquired and landing can be performed safely nothing precludes one from doing so. Conversely, whenever visual references are lost, even-though they were established at the minimum etc a go around must be performed.
Dear moderators if we could get a conclusive answer from ATC guys please much appreciated.
Cheers
DFC, J.T has nailed it. My understanding of performance class A aircraft under EU OPS is to be assumed using IFR based on PANS OPS design criterion. As mentioned before certain aerodromes might impose additional minima like VIS ceiling (not VFR) and a clear pictorial and written procedures must be made available to the crew. This thesis is simply confirmed by a restriction imposed by operators AOC annexes and part A restriction to fly VFR.
Regardless of whatever IAP you fly, whenever visual cues are acquired and landing can be performed safely nothing precludes one from doing so. Conversely, whenever visual references are lost, even-though they were established at the minimum etc a go around must be performed.
Dear moderators if we could get a conclusive answer from ATC guys please much appreciated.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think No matter how well you think you know the airspace/airfield, it is a very good idea to always ask the controller about what missed approach he expects you to do. I mean it's not as if we are flying visual approaches 6 times a day. flying is not rocket science. just be sensible and at the end of the day the idea is not to kill yourself and others.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only the missed approach needs care.
Many aerodromes have noise requriements relating to the approach also. These usually are along the lines of not flying lower than an aircraft making a normal 3 degree approach, not joining final approach below xxxxx feet etc.
---------
9.G,
I never mentioned VFR (or IFR). If you read the performance requirements in EU-OPS you will see that the size of the area in which obstacles have to be cleared is reduced if the pilot can determine their track i.e. navigate visually.
In the case of the missed approach - if you decide to go-arround late i.e. below the DA / MDA, you have left the protected area of the approach procedure and it's associaled missed approach. You should still have the protection of the balked landing surface and other obstacle limitation surfaces in the vicinity of the aerodrome (or be aware of the obstacles !!) but starting a missed approach from 50ft and then having an engine failure (always alowed for in performance A) can mean that even if you flew the full ILS you will not be able to clear the obstacles in the published missed approach for that procedure.
You and your company should be prepared for such a situation.
Many aerodromes have noise requriements relating to the approach also. These usually are along the lines of not flying lower than an aircraft making a normal 3 degree approach, not joining final approach below xxxxx feet etc.
---------
9.G,
I never mentioned VFR (or IFR). If you read the performance requirements in EU-OPS you will see that the size of the area in which obstacles have to be cleared is reduced if the pilot can determine their track i.e. navigate visually.
In the case of the missed approach - if you decide to go-arround late i.e. below the DA / MDA, you have left the protected area of the approach procedure and it's associaled missed approach. You should still have the protection of the balked landing surface and other obstacle limitation surfaces in the vicinity of the aerodrome (or be aware of the obstacles !!) but starting a missed approach from 50ft and then having an engine failure (always alowed for in performance A) can mean that even if you flew the full ILS you will not be able to clear the obstacles in the published missed approach for that procedure.
You and your company should be prepared for such a situation.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
It's your words my friend. Never mind we're here not to accuse but to seek for conclusive answers.
SE go around from 50 ft DH CAT III SINGLE for Airbus is a standard procedure for recurrent LVO evaluation. It's operators responsibility to make sure all performance criteria are met and in case not contingency procedures must be made available to the crew. Therefore when you brief your approach you MUST among the other things make sure landing and go around performance are met in EO conditions. Usually the operator has got a policy in place and 10-7 Jeppesen charts specifying SE procedures to be followed in both TO and GA. As a general rule whenever below MLW and MA climb gradient doesn't exceed 2.5% or VISUAL published MA can be followed otherwise contingency procedure is ought to be flown.
Cheers
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.
SE go around from 50 ft DH CAT III SINGLE for Airbus is a standard procedure for recurrent LVO evaluation. It's operators responsibility to make sure all performance criteria are met and in case not contingency procedures must be made available to the crew. Therefore when you brief your approach you MUST among the other things make sure landing and go around performance are met in EO conditions. Usually the operator has got a policy in place and 10-7 Jeppesen charts specifying SE procedures to be followed in both TO and GA. As a general rule whenever below MLW and MA climb gradient doesn't exceed 2.5% or VISUAL published MA can be followed otherwise contingency procedure is ought to be flown.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Uluru
Age: 78
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
As for Calvin, I think you're right as I do remember some people referring to him as such....maybe because of his initials. Quite sometime back, so such things are quite hazy but the incident still crystal clear!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO - According to ICAO, an air traffic controller may not assign a visual
approach to an IFR flight, unless the pilot requests such an approach.
Separation services (sometimes reduced) from preceding traffic will still be
provided by ATC, and it remains the controller's responsibility to keep the
aircraft in controlled airspace.
Minima requirements: To request a visual approach in airspace with ICAO rules:
i. The field is in sight and expected to remain in sight for the rest of the
approach (pilot's discretion).
ii. If the field is not in sight: the reported ceiling must be above the initial
approach
altitude and there must be enough visibility to see the runway at that
distance.
Missed Approach: A visual approach in ICAO has no missed approach segment. It is
simply not defined. However, some European airlines suggest that their pilots do the
following missed approach procedure from a visual approach: In ICAO operations
the missed approach from a visual approach is to join the traffic pattern on a left
downwind at 1500 feet AGL (jets and turboprops) or at 1000 feet AGL (piston), not the
instrument (missed) approach procedure you were perhaps planning.
approach to an IFR flight, unless the pilot requests such an approach.
Separation services (sometimes reduced) from preceding traffic will still be
provided by ATC, and it remains the controller's responsibility to keep the
aircraft in controlled airspace.
Minima requirements: To request a visual approach in airspace with ICAO rules:
i. The field is in sight and expected to remain in sight for the rest of the
approach (pilot's discretion).
ii. If the field is not in sight: the reported ceiling must be above the initial
approach
altitude and there must be enough visibility to see the runway at that
distance.
Missed Approach: A visual approach in ICAO has no missed approach segment. It is
simply not defined. However, some European airlines suggest that their pilots do the
following missed approach procedure from a visual approach: In ICAO operations
the missed approach from a visual approach is to join the traffic pattern on a left
downwind at 1500 feet AGL (jets and turboprops) or at 1000 feet AGL (piston), not the
instrument (missed) approach procedure you were perhaps planning.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: france
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it seems that we are all wrong because its not even defined ...
... btw in wich ICAO Doc. did you find your info ??...Or did you find that in a non ICAO branded manual ??..
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got it from a FAA v ICAO differences document by some bloke in the US
Unfortunately I shut the window its a bitch to find it.
Its in annex 2 but that seems to be a world secret and can only be purchased
Unfortunately I shut the window its a bitch to find it.
Its in annex 2 but that seems to be a world secret and can only be purchased