What altitude will you fly after a missed visual approach?

[Capt Groper]

Easy

1500' AAL for Jet A/C
1000' AAL for non Jet A/C

[DFC]

It works because one assumes that if one is performing a visual cct in 800m RVR:-

1) You are either good or stupid.
2) If you can see to do the cct, what is wrong with a g/a to another? If you cannot see to do the cct.....................wtf are you there?
3) You are not 'circling'

Who said anything about flying a visual circuit. It could be a visual straight-in approach.

Just because the airport is reporting an RVR of 800m it does not mean that during the approach you can not be in VMC and visual all the way to touchdown.

Dead right we are not circling, circling requires a visibility of 2400m in a CAT C aircraft but if we can satisfy the requirements we can make a visual approach in something less than that.

Imagine Instrument approach is an ILS to 27 but the wind favours 09 which has no approach procedure. You are approching from the west and there is some sea harr to the east partially encroaching on the aerodrome. The RVR is 1400m - good enough to

a) complete a straight-in ILS

or

b) a visual straight-in 09 - if you can satisfy the requirements for a visual approach

but not a circling approach !!

So what do you do if you have to make a missed approach at 100ft on final 09?

I will say it again - visual approach is one where it is made up of random parts - nothing prevents it being briefed. There is no defined missed approach so it would be good practice to find out and brief in advance what all the team expects. By team I mean ATC as well as your nearest colleague.

[BOAC]

Well, I call that 'reductio ad absurdum' - and I debated not replying, but....

1) Unless you are suggesting Leuchars with both ILS and PAR off on 09 when ATC (in my day) may have allowed that, I cannot see any civil airport doing so in that weather. "Runway in use 27 - take it or leave it". SATCO would be having kittens. Keflavik or others in reasonable weather, yes

2) If 1) pertains, then obviously I would establish what ATC wanted for a g/a since I would be flying against the traffic/runway in use, and would in any case probably NOT be able to g/a into a visual circuit with your quoted 'Haar' over Tentsmuir. Again, since it would be a g/a into an ILS 27, ATC need to be in the loop.

Altogether, DFC, a bit of a wildie!

(In fact, I'd probably have been off to Lossie or Edinburgh on the usual 'fumes')

[Bruce Waddington]

Capt Groper,

Documentation please !

In Canada and the US ( I do not know about JAA or CAA rules) the applicable AIMs make it clear that circuit altitude is 1000 above airport elevation unless otherwise noted.

Others pilots I know think 1500 for jets but no one can document it. Flight Safety apparently teach 1500 for jets, but again no documentation except their own manuals.

Anyone ?

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

[jcbmack]

My Error:

I will conitnue to read this thread and learn more.

[9.G]

I'm with you BOAC on this one. Once again the purpose of a visual ATC-wise is to place an aircraft onto position, preferably on final, from which the pilot will be able it to complete the valid INSTRUMENT procedure completely or partially by visual means. Once reported visual with the RWY and reasonable grounds exist that safe landing can be accomplished ATCO is simply relieved of responsibility to provide adequate obstacle clearance not the IFR traffic separation though. Flying to any controlled aerodrome there'll be a valid IFR procedure in place let it be PAR SRA. It will be on the ATIS therefore there'll always be a valid IFR procedure. In your example most probably it'll be PAR or SAR approach for 09 therefore there'll be a valid IFR procedure for 09 with it's associated missed approach procedure. Look at it this way you're at the minima, say 400 ft, and you have acquired visual reference and decide to continue so you're visual now aren't you? At 200 ft you've lost it so what you do? You gonna fly a MA for this approach. Same story if you were at 1500 ft and reported visual. Reporting visual doesn't cancel IFR procedure it only shift the responsibility for adequate obstacle clearance from ATCO to the pilot. I've encountered it both were ATC instructed to follow published and RV missed. In reality not a big drama.
Cheers

[BOAC]

We are a bit 'off track' here, but for Bruce - there is nothing to prevent a circuit at 200' AGL if ATC/airport regulations/obstacles and company limitations do not bar. I'm pretty sure that '1500' feet for jet has grown to become 'folk-lore' through the choice of it in standard circuit training in the sim and for real. 1000' is equally comfortable and safe for a big jet. As I said watching RAM many years ago scorching around CBA at 500' was enjoyable!

9.g - I have to disagree with you on the connection between an IAP and a visual approach. They are not bound together. The IAP can of course progress into a 'visual' but the visual does NOT depend on an IAP. I have many times arrived visually at varying parts of the visual circuit, anywhere between overhead and final, at different speeds and altitudes, at airfields all over the world - often without any form of IAP. All with the approval and knowledge of the relevant ATC unit. Without cancellation of IFR the responsibility for separation from traffic remains, of course, with ATC, but a simple check with them about your intentions - "xxx going around, request left-hand circuit" should cover that and you SHOULD yourself also be aware of the position of any possible conflicting traffic.

[9.G]

BOAC, true visual doesn't depend on IAP and one can fly visual from any possible direction and altitudes.

The IAP can of course progress into a 'visual' but the visual does NOT depend on an IAP.

surely not neither does it cancel an IFR procedure in place for the RWY. In other words you see the RWY on downwind 27 at 5000 ft and report visual to the tower. ATIS promulgates ILS 27 in use. ATC clears you for a visual 27. So far so good. You being able to land on 27 by visual means doesn't cancel a valid ILS 27, doesn't it? Neither does it convert your flight into a VFR one, doesn't it? Consequently in my understanding one has got two choices for MA either published MA for the IAP in place or RV. That's the whole point. The only time when there's no valid IAP is when one flies to uncontrolled aerodrome in which case IFR will have to be canceled and change of rules from IFR to VFR will have to be accomplished. In this case the way to assure traffic separation is to stick to the VFR traffic pattern e.g 1500 ft LT. Lack of clear explanatory material causes lots of confusion on this topic. So far I haven't seen anyone in EU trying to join a VFR traffic circuit after MA.
Cheers.

[BOAC]

ATIS promulgates ILS 27 in use. ATC clears you for a visual 27.

- 'ATIS' does not constitute a clearance - it is 'I' - 'Information'. If the clearance is for Visual that is it. Not sure what 'RV' is? Also I'm having a bit of trouble with the punctuation here "surely not neither does it cancel an IFR procedure"?

So far I haven't seen anyone in EU trying to join a VFR traffic circuit after MA.

- bearing in mind that:-
1) A visual these days
2) A G/A from such

is an extremely rare event I am not really surprised!

[9.G]

Ok let's start from the scratch once again.

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.

In our case it'd be ILS 27 which would partly or completely completed by visual means. The mere fact of one flying visual with terrain doesn't waive ILS in use and flying under IFR bounds one to the published procedures unless RV. (radar vectored). Well those of us involved in training do shoot quite few MA and so far it was either published MA or RV.

I'm having a bit of trouble with the punctuation here "surely not neither does it cancel an IFR procedure"?

IOTW clearance to execute visual doesn't waive IAP in place for this RWY and IF rules are to be followed. ATCO guys would shed some light on it I'm sure about it.
Cheers

[mad_jock]

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/388...ml#post5202084

This was the post that seemed to answer the question when I asked in the ATC forum.

[BOAC]

9.g - what you guys do in 'training' is not really relevant here - as we know 'training' and reality can often be widely separated.

If I may borrow your (EU OPS) quote and your highlighting?

“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.

In our case it'd be ILS 27 which would partly or completely NOT completed by visual means.

It is becoming sadly apparent that those in the flying world and ATC who cannot live with sensible, intelligent and negotiated solutions to problems will need yet another RULE to cover this!

[OzExpat]

It seems to me that everyone is trying to reinvent the wheel here. If you are making a visual approach, you are demonstrably NOT making an instrument approach. To my mind, this only happens when you can actually SEE the runway, from a goodly distance away - I'm talking at least 10 or even up to 30 miles, depending on your knowledge of the place!

So, you've put yourself in the situation and called "visual" and ATC has said (maybe to themselves... bloody ripper!), then cleared you for visual approach, call tower... blah, blah, blah. Okay, so far so good.

So there you are, configuring for the final approach, going through final approach and pre-landing checks. However, Murphy's Law intervenes...

1. Too hot and too high... oops!
2. Dumass Airlines taxies onto the runway in the mistaken belief that they have a clearance... oops!
3. Any other kind of... ooops!

So now, as the Captain of the inbound aircraft, who's been given clearance to land by the Tower (after transfer for Radar/Approach/WhatBloodyEver), there is now a very valid reason why you can't land on the runway ahead of you, in weather conditions that are really good for visual approach, etc. What are you going to do?

This is the dilemma at the heart of the problem, so far as I'm concerned. The fact is that I will ALWAYS call visual as soon as I can see the runway, in wx conditions that assure me of continued visual reference - this is SOP, so far as I'm concerned and I will ALWAYS insist that PF briefs for this and any go-around for the unforeseen!

The brief is, essentially, to climb straight ahead on runway heading, call ATC - if they haven't already seen the manoeuvre and already done the right thing by giving instructions that we've been too busy to acknowledge. After whatever R/T exchange has been necessary, we FOLLOW the instructions from ATC to help us avoid traffic conflicts.

Heaven knows we're MUCH too busy, at least initially, to concentrate on TAWS or EGPWS, or anything like that - we aviate, navigate and communicate! Why is that so difficult? If anyone needs a book reference for that, look up your own local airmanship guide! You DON'T depend on ATC for your initial action or even your initial navigation.

How long will it take you to get the g/a going along runway heading, to sort out the aeroplane and it's navigation straight ahead - and then talk to ATC? I'll bet that you're all switched on enough for that all to happen while your aeroplane is within the control zone airspace.

Yes, in MY brief for a visual approach, I set the SOP altitude for the traffic pattern, for the g/a. I cancel that when it is certain that I can land - and I can SEE other aircraft on the ground are going to be clear of the runway. That too, is SOP, and part of the approach briefing.

Let's not try to reinvent the wheel here. Let's just be professionals and make some PROFESSIONAL decisions that will keep us and our pax alive. That decision starts at the point where we decide to call "visual", in the interests of saving the company some time - and money. Let's not go off half-cocked in this!

[9.G]

It is becoming sadly apparent that those in the flying world and ATC who cannot live with sensible, intelligent and negotiated solutions to problems will need yet another RULE to cover this!

True... Many possible variations of which part may have been completed which not etc.
Here is the answer from Heathrow director

It depends on what sort of airfield you mean. At a small airfield with light traffic it may just mean a turn back into the visual circuit. At a large airport ATC will issue appropriate instructions to sequence the aircraft for a further approach.

So there we go.
Cheerio

[hawk37]

"In Canada and the US ( I do not know about JAA or CAA rules) the applicable AIMs make it clear that circuit altitude is 1000 above airport elevation unless otherwise noted.

Others pilots I know think 1500 for jets but no one can document it. Flight Safety apparently teach 1500 for jets, but again no documentation except their own manuals."

Bruce, haven't really been following this thread, but does this address the 1500 ft?

Far 91.126 (e) Minimum altitudes when operating to an airport in Class D airspace. (1) Unless required by the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria, each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane must enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above the elevation of the airport and maintain at least 1,500 feet until further descent is required for a safe landing.

Applies to class C and B too, if I read it correctly.

[saintex2002]

Originally Posted by OzExpat

So now, as the Captain of the inbound aircraft, who's been given clearance to land by the Tower (after transfer for Radar/Approach/WhatBloodyEver), there is now a very valid reason why you can't land on the runway ahead of you, in weather conditions that are really good for visual approach, etc. What are you going to do?

Dear, OzExpat, the problem is not what are you going to do ?..., the problem, dear OzExpat, is what are you expected to do ?... , going around during a visual approach, following, of course as a very pro.airman like you certainly are, an indisputable published rule well known by all of us, the others pilots in the loop, and the worldwilde ATCO community...
So to that problem : what are you expected to do ?... , dear, OzExpat, there is no ICAO ruled answer... for the time being...and you are still free to perform as aware as you are, going around during a visual...hope Murphy doesn't blind your R/T too...

...And btw, methinks the wheel is still spinning round... and the sun going down....

[9.G]

ICAO —

1.
Initial Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure between the initial approach fix and the intermediate approach fix or, where applicable, the final approach fix or point.
2.
Intermediate Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure between either the intermediate approach fix and the final approach fix or point, or between the end of a reversal, race track or dead reckoning track procedure and the final approach fix or point, as appropriate.
3.
Final Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure in which alignment and descent for landing are accomplished.
4.
Missed Approach Procedure — The procedure to be followed if the approach cannot be continued.

USA —

1.
Initial Approach — The segment between the initial approach fix and the intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is established on the intermediate course or final course.
2.
Intermediate Approach — The segment between the intermediate fix or point and the final approach fix.
3.
Final Approach — The segment between the final approach fix or point and the runway, airport or missed approach point.
4.
Missed Approach — The segment between the missed approach point, or point of arrival at decision height, and the missed approach fix at the prescribed altitude.

VISUAL APPROACH (ICAO)
An approach by an IFR flight when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed in visual reference to terrain.

VISUAL APPROACH (USA)
An approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and under the control of the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above 1000 feet and visibility of 3 miles or greater.

Methinks that explains different views on the topic on both sides of the pond.
Cheerio

[saintex2002]

Originally Posted by 9.G

Methinks that explains different views on the topic on both sides of the pond.
Cheerio

Methinks, ...
There is no published MAP when on visual approach...
That's the rule...if you want to be purely ruled....

[9.G]

Excerpt from 4444

6.5.3 Visual Approach

6.5.3.1
Subject to the conditions in 6.5.3.3, clearance for an IFR flight to execute a visual approach may be requested by a flight crew or initiated by the controller. In the latter case, the concurrence of the flight crew shall be required.
6.5.3.3
An IFR flight may be cleared to execute a visual approach provided that the pilot can maintain visual reference to the terrain and;
1.
the reported ceiling is at or above the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment for the aircraft so cleared; or
2.
the pilot reports at the level of the beginning of the initial approach segment or at any time during the instrument approach procedure that the meteorological conditions are such that with reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed.
6.5.3.4 Separation shall be provided between an aircraft cleared to execute a visual approach and other arriving and departing aircraft.

We'll get there sooner or later...

[saintex2002]

...So, 9.G, where do you find the definition of the G/A leg during a visual approach in that ICAO Doc.4444 extract ?...