Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

What altitude will you fly after a missed visual approach?

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

What altitude will you fly after a missed visual approach?

Old 27th Sep 2009, 18:27
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: france
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I maintain, as I said it in the other ATC Issues thread, when you decide to begin a G/A leg during a visual approach, you have, from my POV, no more than the three following possibilites :
1.You fly what you want...thinking you are still IFR and maybe not really alone under your beautiful sky...
2.You ask ATC what you will have to fly if you think that this cloud layer...this AFmachin on the RWY...this Follow Me car... etc... etc...
3.You fly following the G/A route clearance done effectively by this very pro.ATCO when he clears you for that Visual Leg of the published IAP you didn't entirely follow...remaining under Instrument Flight Rule...
That's purely a technical or professional way to answer the beginning thread question of " what altitude will you...etc...etc ??? " ...and surely not ICAO ruled...because there is no rule since the visual approach clearance appears in our air world...
Hope that suits u... 9.G...
saintex2002 is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2009, 20:11
  #102 (permalink)  
9.G
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
saintex2002, I agree with all your solutions. Look in practice it's really no big deal and resolved fairly quickly by prompt instruction of ATC. What we were trying to do here was to get to the grounds of the theory nothing more. I wish we in EU had it same clear cut way as the guys overseas but we don't. So taking bits and bytes from here and there we draw conclusions. Every theory has the right to exist till proven wrong. I'll try to put puzzle pieces together daring a POV:
4444 underpins the existence of a valid IAP for the RWY, as we saw earlier, implying consequently a published MAP. The definition of VA implies a partial completion or not completion of IAP. Logically the not completed part would be the final, wouldn't it? We also learned that ICAO doesn't bound MA procedure to the existence of MAP, it's rather a genuine term. It's simply what one has to fly if not able to land as per ICAO. The last stroke is the notion of VA not canceling IFR nor converting it to VFR. Resolving the mystery of dubious spread across definitions it's seems like the published MA remains a valid option. Though as we learned from Mr. heathrow director RV is preferable choice. You've mentioned comm failure on final while visual, haven't you? So what would you fly LH traffic pattern or published comm failure procedure for the RWY in use?
Cheers
9.G is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2009, 22:45
  #103 (permalink)  
DFC
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The whole problem is that there can not be a defined missed approach procedure - or altitude for a visual approach.

Many people seem very confused and unaware of the fact that a missed approach procedure is unique to and forms part of a specific approach procedure.

Just because;

at abc airport,

The ILS missed approach is straight ahead to 3 dme then the 180 radial to xyz vor climbing to 3000ft

and

The VORDME missed approach is straight ahead to 3 dme then the 180 radial to xyz vor climbing to 3000ft.

and

The NDB missed approach is straight ahead to 3 dme then the 180 radial to xyz vor climbing to 3000ft.

(The DME ident being common to all procedures)

It does not mean that the missed approach procedures are the same.

They are not. In fact they are very different. The criteria for obstacle clearance and tracking and the area within which obstacles have to be cleared is different in each of the above cases, as it the tollerance in position for the definition of the missed approach point.

Each is unique and part of the overall approach procedure.

Therefore, one can not ever ever fly an ILS to the above runway and complete the VOR missed approach.

So.

If everyone agrees that they would never fly the missed approach of the VOR procedure when making an ILS approach.

Then why do people think that it would be automatically OK to fly the ILS missed approach when the approach was a visual approach.

A visual approach can not have a defined missed approach because there is no way to say at what place and at what altitude the missed approach would be started.

That is why I say, if you don't want a surprise, obtain agreement from all the team as to what will be done if the approach is missed.

--------

The other aspect is that if ATC say follow the missed approach procedure for the VOR then, you have to respect the missed approach procedure as cleared and that includes tracking before the missed approach point (because the obstacle clearance after the point is based on reaching that point on a defined track) and the minimum level at the missed approach point (because again that is what obstacle clearance is absed upon) and performance i.e. be able to complete the missed approach as cleared.

No who is going to say - whay bother just do a visual missed approach?

Regards,

DFC
DFC is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 05:51
  #104 (permalink)  


PPRuNeaholic
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by saintex2002
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...
What am I expected to do? I'm expected to be able to think for myself, use initiative whenever necessary, make sound command judgements and act professionally - it's part of what I'm paid to do. This is what comes first when one thinks about the concept of aviate, navigate, communicate - or do you really prefer that ATC flies your aeroplane for you? Perhaps you are being paid for something different, dear saintex?

As for R/T problems, yes that can happen anywhere. If all the radios die at the same time, I look for ATC light signals while the PNF uses a mobile phone to call the Tower... No, that's not in any rulebook I've ever read, but it IS part of the lateral thinking that is required of a pilot who is in command! But I'm sure you knew that...
OzExpat is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 06:14
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hawk37

Many thanks for the reference to the FARs !!

On a the quick read through it does seem that the circuit altitude in USA Class D airspace is 1500 above airport elevation for large/turbojet aircraft. It also seems that 91.129 is applicable in Class C and B airspace.

Good info and thanks for pointing me in the correct direction. I want to do some more digging and will get back to the thread when I have finished.

best regards,

Bruce Waddington
Bruce Waddington is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 06:26
  #106 (permalink)  
9.G
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DFC I i give it a benefit of a doubt and leave it at that. Perhaps you're right don't know. However so far I haven't seen anyone setting 1500 ft in the ALT shooting a visual, everyone was preselecting ALT for a published one whatever it might be. Again doesn't mean we're right, who knows.
Funny enough the subject of comm fail was brought up. We're all aware bout the comm fail procedure VMC IMC etc.

For the purpose of these procedures ATC will expect and IFR flight following the ATS route structure to adopt the IMC procedure as detailed below. If there is an overriding safety reason, the pilot may adopt the VMC procedure.

Aircraft inbound to London (Heathrow)

1.In the event radio communication failure occurs before ETA, or before EAT when this has been received and acknowledged, pilot inbound to London (Heathrow) Airport will:
–fly to the appropriate holding point as detailed in the STAR;
–hold until the last acknowledged ETA plus 10 minutes, or EAT when this has been given;
–then commence descent for landing in accordance with specified procedures and effect a landing within 30 minutes, or later if able to approach and land visually.
2.If the radio communication failure occurs after aircraft has reported to ATC on reaching holding point, pilot will maintain the last assigned level over the holding point until:
–ATA over holding point plus 10 minutes, or 10 minutes after the last acknowledged communication with ATC, whichever is the later, or
–EAT, when this has been received and acknowledged;
–then commence descent for landing in accordance with specified procedures and effect a landing within 30 minutes, or later if able to approach and land visually.
3.If radio communication failure occurs during initial approach under radar vectoring, the procedures to be followed are shown on Jeppesen 10-1R chart.
4.If radio communication failure occurs following a missed approach the aircraft will:
–fly to the appropriate missed approach holding point at 3000ft;
–complete at least one holding pattern;
–then commence descent for landing in accordance with specified procedures.

I presume that can be the case after one's cleared for a visual. Why is it ATC prefers one to follow published MA for comm failure opposite to LT 1500 ft waiting for the light beam?

Oz great idea with the mobile hopefully the I phone isn't gonna give up on us at that very important moment.
Cheerio gents
9.G is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 09:58
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
9G:
Why is it ATC prefers one to follow published MA for comm failure opposite to LT 1500 ft waiting for the light beam?
Because you may be IMC during the comm failure and unable to fly a visual at 1500' which means it is the simplest option as a catch all for all cases.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just snot in down the deadside at 500' waggling wings and pumping the throttle, breaking downwind assuming the callsign "speechless 1 is this a practice?"
bayete is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 11:19
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Uluru
Age: 78
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My incident in KCH ( WBGG )

It has been more than 15 years since my incident and after running into that particular check airman, we had a lengthy discussion over at Ms Poh Eng's cafe at the MAS training centre. The issue of visual missed approach altitude was certainly the core of our discussion; well, I agreed with him that in the absence of any unique local procedures as per AIP one should initially maintain local visual circuit altitude until tower clears otherwise. In any visual missed approach, it is imperative to contact tower ASAP. However this is not always possible due to jammed transmission or tower controller occupied with other tasks in a " one man show " tower operations. Please do not forget there are thousands of airports all over the world who do not have radar, multiple ATCOs etc. At least in that part of the world I operated some 15 years ago, the standard of English was fairly good and the ATC basically stuck to ICAO procedures. Once a pilot accepts a visual approach ( not declaring visual in the midst of an instrument approach ), he/she is solely responsible for traffic and terrain avoidance and stick to that in case of a visual missed approach by joining the visual traffic pattern. What my mistake was just simply by force of habit flying a missed approach based on the ILS instrument approach like in SYD those days........days of flying in an insular environment!
potteroomore is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 13:39
  #109 (permalink)  
9.G
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bayete, try to read it again, would you?
For the purpose of these procedures ATC will expect and IFR flight following the ATS route structure to adopt the IMC procedure as detailed below. If there is an overriding safety reason, the pilot may adopt the VMC procedure.
Does it ring the bell? As described in the procedure it may very well happen after being cleared for a visual. Highly unusual constellation indeed nevertheless possible. Methinks, the reason is traffic separation and buying some time to sort out incoming traffic. I'd really love to see A 346 in Heathrow simply making 180 at 1500 ft and coming back to land. Not only will one have to line up at the end of the queue, god knows how many miles into the opposite direction but create probably very uncomfortable situation for Mr. Director. Even VMC I'd adopt comm failure procedure as well as trying to call via iphone or try to catch some wifi network.

potteroomore, for the sake of correctness despite being visual ATC is still responsible for traffic separation unless you've reported preceding in sight and cleared to maintain visual separation with it.
Cheers
9.G is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 13:49
  #110 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For heaven's sake! Since the OP is from 'Taiwan', why on earth are we wasting space talking about A340's doing visuals at LHR When was the last airliner 'visual circuit' flown there - anyone?

For the record, if I had a comms failure in a visual circuit (that's 2 emergencies for some....) the VERY LAST THING I would want to do was to fly some ding-bat missed approach for a procedure I haven't got anywhere near to and carefully manoeuvre myself back into busy airspace and possible IMC without comms
BOAC is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 15:47
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
9.G
Sorry, I was responding to your last but one sentance where I read it as a query as to why ATC prefer you to fly the MA for lost comms as opposed to a left turn at 1500' into the visual cct.
Why is it ATC prefers one to follow published MA for comm failure opposite to LT 1500 ft waiting for the light beam?
Is that not what you were asking? If so my answer remains: The IMC procedure is a catch all that works both for Inst Apps and Vis Apps.
Of course if there is an overriding safety reason you may elect to do something else.
No bells ringing I'm afraid, I never suggested anything contrary to what you have highlighted in red text. My last sentance was a jest harking back to the good old days when going through training and when I was an instructor; when the easiest way to join was simulated loss of RT where you didn't need to make any calls/deal with ATC and could run into the CCT taking into account of other traffic and land without speaking to anyone. (Yes one may have given ATC the heads up that your recovery to base would be loss of RT)


I agree with BOAC that if you were in a visual CCT I would stay there, you may not even have an approach plate out with the MAP on it. But visual CCTs are a little different from a visual appraoch after and IFR procedure.

I'm still going with the answer-Confirm with ATC what they want you to do.
As we can quite clearly see from this thread, there does not appear to be an answer either way. Controllers are even saying it depends on where you are, what size of airfield etc. So asking has got to be the safest and easiest way.

Last edited by bayete; 29th Sep 2009 at 15:55. Reason: Comment on BOAc's post
bayete is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 18:00
  #112 (permalink)  
9.G
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jeppesen 10-1R chart. is readily available in the trip kit any time. No brainier at all. Gents lets read carefully the statements and skip the assumptions if we opt to have sensible discussion, shall we? At no point was I talking bout being in the circuit but after being radar vectored. Not so long ago I recall ILS 26 being inop in LTN. Upon initial contact approach controller called for RV for a visual 26. That was a very real situation. Now picture this you're on RV for a visual 27R in LHR and lost 2 way comm. No doubts one will continue and try to land. What if you missed? That's my initial situation. Why am getting on that? Coz if it was taken for granted that once shooting visual one is expected to join LT 1500 ft visual circuit in case of MA why to bother with all this comm fail procedures? Simply punch in 7600 and if missed join the LT circuit. Am I conveying my point?
LHR however prefers one to join the specific comm fail procedure both VMC or IMC unless blah blah as many others do. Just picture that for a moment aircraft going around in LHR from a visual 27R with 7600 turning left at 1500 ft with 27L being active for departures and all the other traffic lined up behind you. Same story for CDG an so forth. As Heatrhow Director said all depends on the airfield.
One thing is clear nothing is clear. We're in grey area when it comes to visual.
I'm still going with the answer-Confirm with ATC what they want you to do.
you have my vote on this one.
Cheerio.
9.G is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2009, 20:02
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oop north
Posts: 1,247
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'd adopt comm failure procedure as well as trying to call via iphone or try to catch some wifi network.
Interesting point... I haven't researched too many places so I don't know how many places this applies, but for my home base (in France), the French AIP charts include the control tower telephone number and highly recommend it should be used via mobile phone in the event of lost comms. Strangely, the Jepp charts we use don't have it, which is not particularly helpful if that's all you have on board the aircraft and you need it...!

This would also suggest they'd prefer you to sod off to the hold even if you are in VMC allowing them time to sort themselves out, rather than you frantically trying to call while you're downwind at 1500ft for another approach.
Zippy Monster is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2009, 12:05
  #114 (permalink)  
DFC
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
9.g,

You seem to have confused a UK comms failure requirement for aircraft flying within the ATS route structure with what to do in the vicinity of an aerodrome when making a visual approach.

You have also confused "being visual" with "being in VMC". It is possible to be visual but in IMC and therefore, the IMC requirements apply for communications failure.

There is a procedure for communications failure after missed approach. However, there is also another notified procedure for a communications failure during the approach phase - continue visually if possible.

Again this shows the nature of the visual approach - there is nothing defined.

Should a missed approach be required from a visual approach to 27R at Heathrow following a communications failure, I would be entitled to make a command decision to do what I decided was safe at that time

Remain visual and fly the published procedure via CHT

Remain visual and fly a right hand circuit

or

Go back into IMC and complete the published procedure in IMC.

Much depends on the situation.

If the comms failure occurred enroute, I would be very mindfull of the requirement to sit in the hold until ATA+10, complete the non-radar procedure and land within 30 minutes

It is the "land within 30 minutes" bit that is quite high in my mind - especially the fact that if I can remain visual it does not apply and also once the 30 minutes is up I have (officially) to go somewhere else.
DFC is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2009, 14:56
  #115 (permalink)  
9.G
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK short and painless. Have a look at emergency procedures for Germany, will ya?

VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
IFR flights in VMC follow IMC procedures (as described above). I'm not smart enough to insert the page here but I know what I'm gonna do if I fly to FRA.

Well, I wonder what the hell did I confuse this time?

Take care mate.
9.G is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2009, 18:17
  #116 (permalink)  
DFC
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, I wonder what the hell did I confuse this time?
The fact that one can complete a visual approach in IMC.

The ICAO communications failure procedures and the case of both the UK and Germany getting IFR flights within the system to adopt the IMC procedure regardless of conditions is based on getting the flight to the holding fix of the destination aerodrome in a predictable manner not to help the pilot who has the communications failure but to help predict what they will do so that all the other flights in the system can be separated from the comms failure flight.

Imagine a B737 at FL370 has a comms failure over London and adopts the VMC procedure, screams down through all the levels and lands at Heathrow!! - Probably not a good idea. A better idea to get them to use the IMC procedure which makes it possible to predict what they will do.

After the IAF, or when flying a visual approach there are so many variables in the situation that it is impossible to predict what one would do.

Important things to think about are;

If VMC - Do you want to go back into IMC and route to a fix at a level that other aircraft may be holding?

Do you think that if at Heathrow a B747 starts a missed approach and is heading off to the NW climbing that they stop all further approaches because if that B747 goes to CHT at 3000ft and another aircraft has a comms failure between BNN and landing they will do the same...........the point being that the comms failure procedures do not cater for saving the ass of the pilot who has comms failure but putting something in place that saves the ass of everyone who does not have a comms failure.

Which means that if two or more aircraft have a comms failure it is possible to have a metal rainshower if both follow the procedures exactly.

Therefore the fact that one is making a visual approach has no effect on the comms failure procedures.
DFC is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.