Visual approach then GA

[Check Airman]

So if you flew into, say, Milan Malpensa onto 35R as a visual approach would you do the G/A for ILS Y or ILS Z......they are different!

Having never flown in Milan, I can only assume that the ILS X & Y have different minima (as would be the case here in the US). Also assuming that the ATIS would specify X or Y, that's what I'd load in the FMC and what I'd be flying.

I look at it from an ATC perspective. Let's assume worst case scenario, and we lose coms on the GA. If i fly the published missed, at least ATC knows where I'm going, and where to protect airspace. If I decide to do a pattern, there are way more variables. How wide will it be? How long will the final be? What if there are clouds at pattern altitude?

[FlightPathOBN]

Check,

Exactly! If you fly the published missed, you already know you have several protections. You know that you have obstacle protection, and you know that you have airspace protection.
Outside that area, you risk other aircraft and/or terrain.
Why fight it?

[aviatorhi]

that's what I'd load in the FMC and what I'd be flying

The whole point is you're on a visual and flying neither the Y or Z approach, loading the FMS with the "VFR 35R" procedure would be most appropriate.

Let's assume worst case scenario, and we lose coms on the GA. If i fly the published missed, at least ATC knows where I'm going, and where to protect airspace.

A check airman, is unaware of squawking 7600 and looking for light gun signals, finds it safer to barrel headlong into traffic?

From InFO 11003 (FAA AFS-200):

Pilots should be aware of the responsibilities of accepting and flying Visual Approaches, particularly during marginal VMC and notify ATC immediately if:

- Unable to continue following the preceding aircraft
- Unable to remain clear of clouds
- Unable to retain sight of the airport
- A climb is required.

If you don't want to accept the responsibility in marginal conditions then don't accept a visual in marginal conditions. In CAVU conditions I suggest you "see and avoid" and follow the lost comms procedures outlined by the regulating agency. In the case of the FAA that would be see and avoid other traffic, squawk the appropriate code, and return for landing via light gun signals.

[Check Airman]

The whole point is you're on a visual and flying neither the Y or Z approach, loading the FMS with the "VFR 35R" procedure would be most appropriate.

In my operation, we must back up all visual approaches with an IAP. Most of the time, this will be (in order of preference) ILS, RNAV, VOR etc. Is there ever a good reason you would not load an ILS for backup guidance?

A check airman, is unaware of squawking 7600 and looking for light gun signals, finds it safer to barrel headlong into traffic?

Check Airman is my username, not a title. That's not relevant though, as we are discussing basic instrument procedures.

Firstly, I think I would be less likely to find opposite direction tfc on a departure path during a GA. Secondly, light gun signals are difficult to see under the best of conditions. At my shop, after a GA, we have three checklists to run. One being particularly long. On downwind at 1500ft and ~180kt trying to get everything set up and looking out for traffic, I can guarantee you that I probably will miss the light gun.

Like I said before, executing a traffic pattern leads to a whole lot of unknowns, both in the control room and in the cockpit. By following the published missed, we eliminate lots of those unknowns (route, altitude) and perhaps gives us some time to think if there's a holding pattern.

[aviatorhi]

In my operation, we must back up all visual approaches with an IAP. Most of the time, this will be (in order of preference) ILS, RNAV, VOR etc. Is there ever a good reason you would not load an ILS for backup guidance?

Certain aircraft will autotune the ILS for you when selecting the VFR procedure, and nothing prohibits you from tuning it yourself to either the ILS or VOR. The procedure you are authorized for, though, is the visual, not the ILS, RNAV or VOR. Would you fly the ILS procedure when cleared for the VOR?

Firstly, I think I would be less likely to find opposite direction tfc on a departure path during a GA.

Depends on the airport, regardless, all regulatory guidance points you to ask ATC for instructions.

Secondly, light gun signals are difficult to see under the best of conditions. At my shop, after a GA, we have three checklists to run. One being particularly long. On downwind at 1500ft and ~180kt trying to get everything set up and looking out for traffic, I can guarantee you that I probably will miss the light gun.

Sounds more like your shop needs to not inundate the crew with tasks after a simple GA. A proposed change / safety form filed with the offending checklists would be appropriate, task saturation during a sequence of events similar to a takeoff sounds a bit ridiculous.

Furthermore, if you have multiple failures I wouldn't be worried about completing every checklist when I'm directly overhead an airfield. Go around and land.

[Check Airman]

I think we're starting to go in circles here, so let's agree to disagree.

[sevenstrokeroll]

light gun signals

ok...you just did a visual and a go around and some are worried about being in the clouds.

well, do what ATC expects you to do. come back for the ILS and land...and what do you do if you are in the clouds and can't see the friggin light gun signals? (and can't maintain VMC to go to another field)

you land and hope everyone did their job like they are supposed to. and then you can look for ATC light gun signals for taxi...or just sit in a safe place and GET OUT YOUR CELLPHONE AND CALL THE TOWER.

sure put 7600 in your transponder...declare an emergency first with 7700...ooh and listen to the VOR for ATC transmissions if that works...of course half of you guys don't know what a freaking VOR is now a days.


every so often the go around question comes up with the visual approach....I've been through this for the last 30 years. someone on this forum should call up the FAA and have them spell it out in rregs.

but remember ATC isn't flying your plane (YET) and it is up to you.

I wonder if sully looked for light gun signals....sheesh!!!!!!!!

[galaxy flyer]

This subject is a popular one every year or so. This isn't rocket science, well, maybe it is.

It. Is. A. Visual. Approach. If you can't maintain visual, don't take the clearance. If you have to go around, due to separation or fouled up landing, go! Tell ATC, "on the overshoot, request a closed pattern.". ATC will say, either, "cleared closed, report base" or "maintain runway headin, climb xxxx, call approach on 1xx.xx".

Why would ATC expect you to fly the miss for an approach you didn't fly, nor were cleared for? Only ardent followers of the magenta line need to worry about a procedure that neither exists, nor is needed.

GF

[aviatorhi]

@sevenstrokeroll

There's umpteen thousand scenarios we can play out, the one we were discussing dealt with lost comms, now you wanna talk about clouds, how about we talk about the airport closing or a hijacking attempt on the go or low fuel or the navaid for the missed going INOP on a flight where the GPS was deferred... the list goes on.

The point is that charging head long into the published missed for an approach you are not cleared for is not the correct course of action.

I'm not going to spend hours going through every possible scenario to satisfy every last possible course of events.

[Tipsy Barossa]

I have found a post from a former colleague who almost had a near miss after going around following a visual approach. This was in a non radar controlled airport somewhere in South East Asia.

potteroomore

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Uluru
Age: 66
Posts: 10


Ahh....how easy we forget the basics we learnt during our PPL/CPL days!!!

Many years ago in the back waters of SEAsia, I was humbled and shaken by a near airmiss after a missed approach after a visual approach. Years of flying into Syd where the local procedures called for a missed approach following the charted instrument missed approach........so by a force of habit, I carried out the RWY 25 ILS missed approach in KCH ( WBGG ) after being cleared for a visual approach onto that runway. We had sighted the runway but stuffed up the approach after being high and fast. It was a clear day with visibility of 10km or more but cloud base of about 3000 feet. The ILS missed approach called for a climb towards the VKG VOR climbing to 4000 ft. I was on tower frequency and unbeknownst to me, the approach controller had cleared another aircracft to overhead the VOR at 4000 ft and we nearly had a big fireball.........we were saved when my sharp f/o casually mentioned that we ought to join the visual traffic circuit; I said " what, who told you that? " He casually mentioned the name of one of the local training check captain's name and suddenly I had goose bumps; I didn't know why but I just yanked the aircraft into an immediate left turn as we almost disappeared into the stratus layer at about 3500 feet, followed by a real quick descent to circuit altitude as the tower come everly slowly asking our intention! It was a very quiet and squeaky request for another visual circuit when we were advised by tower that the approach ( there was no radar in KCH in the early 90s; no TCAS then, too ) control had cleared the other aircraft for a full ILS with an altitude restriction of 2500 ft until we have landed. Tower had expected us to maintained circuit altitude 1500 ft when we conducted the visual missed approach. It had happened so fast and I must say the tower controller wasn't on the ball too! We finally did another visual approach after the aircraft was sent around to the VOR for another full ILS approach.

What triggered the goose bumps and the sharp left turn which saved the day? About a year earlier had a route check and was debriefed by a particular line check captain that I ought to set the circuit altitude on the MCP altitude selector as the missed approach altitude and expect to join the aerodrome visual circuit should I had to carry out a go around during a visual approach. Well, this chap was a young chinaman who was made instructor/checker after less than a year as a captain on the B734 after coming down from the B744; well I guess we Oz expats did not take too kindly to young upstarts, suffice to say I didn't take him too seriously and just errr ed& hummed my way during the debriefing!! However I was truly lucky that subconsciously, that debrief leapt into me at the right time. And my f/o was similarly briefed on this by that same instrucor during his line training and he managed to sheepishly remind ( albeit casually ) this highly experienced foreign captain to join the visual circuit! Talk about divine intervention or providence!! I bought my f/o a full dinner with the whole works that night! And months later I ran into that instructor ( well, he had transitioned onto the A330 ) and I thanked him profusely.......he had forgotten about that debrief but mentioned that he was amazed at how we pilots have forgotten the basics that we learnt our PPL/CPL training after we obtained out ATPLs!

This topic had been discussed at length in this previous thread. Read here :

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/38712...-approach.html

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Can I recommend, from long experience, that you make certain you know what the criteria is, for visual approach for an IFR flight, in the country you happen to be.

Very roughly, there is the ICAO basic criteria, pretty straightforward, then there is US/Canada, almost the same and a bit more flexible than straight ICAO, most other countries except some European more or less ICAO, make certain you understand the UK criteria, including how the landing clearance works and who is responsible for separation on the ground, not just in the air --- actually the same as FAA.

----- and then ----- wait for it, surprise, surprise ------ boom tish!!!! ------- there is Australia.

As will not surprise anybody familiar with the Australia penchant from making something simple bloody hellish complicated ---- there is the Australian visual approach criteria. About the one bit that is simple, if there is an instrument approach for the runway, a aircraft on a visual approach follows the IFR G/A, unless instructed otherwise.

'tis all in the Australian AIP, or the (voluminous) Australia pages of the Jep. WW Text.

NZ has a few little wrinkles, too, usually associated with approach noise minimization. It's as well to be aware, as they do prosecute non-compliance ---- keeps the locals happy with the occasional fierce press release.

Tootle pip!!

[9.G]

Ozzie's rules are as follows:
1.14 GO AROUND AND MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE IN VMC
1.14.1 In the event that an aircraft is required to go around from a visual approach in VMC, the aircraft must initially climb on runway track, remain visual and await instructions from ATC. If the aircraft cannot clear obstacles on runway track, the aircraft may turn.
1.14.2 The exception to the above procedure is that at Sydney visual go-arounds must be carried out:
a. in accordance with the published ILS missed approach procedure for the runway the aircraft is using; or b. as directed by ATC.
1.14.3 In the event an aircraft is unable, or does not wish, to land from an instrument approach in VMC, the aircraft must carry out the published instrument missed approach procedure for the instrument approach being flown, unless ATC directs otherwise.
1.14.4 At Class D aerodromes with parallel runways where contra-rotating circuit operations are in progress, if ATC instructs, or a pilot initiates a go around, the pilot must:
a. commence climb to circuit altitude;
b. position the aircraft on the active side and parallel to the nominated duty runway, while maintaining sepa-
ration from other aircraft; and
c. follow ATC instructions or re-enter the circuit from upwind.

This is getting otta hand here with all wishful thinking.

[aterpster]

How in blazes did lost comm get into all of this?

[sevenstrokeroll]

aviatorhi

I was being sarcastic.

[aviatorhi]

@seventrokeroll

In which case I sincerely apologize, the internet never really sells the sarcasm.

[FlightPathOBN]

there is the Australian visual approach criteria. About the one bit that is simple, if there is an instrument approach for the runway, a aircraft on a visual approach follows the IFR G/A, unless instructed otherwise.

Exactly, AUS, like most countries (except the US) use VFR 90% of the time, following the same IFR procedures. So when you have to GA, the instructions are already there, straight ahead to 4000, await ATC.

In NZ, Queensland, you just land, no matter what is going on!

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Ledsled

As will not surprise anybody familiar with the Australia penchant from making something simple bloody hellish complicated ---- there is the Australian visual approach criteria. About the one bit that is simple, if there is an instrument approach for the runway, a aircraft on a visual approach follows the IFR G/A, unless instructed otherwise.

Wrong. Get your facts straight before spouting off about how bad everything Australian is.

[sevenstrokeroll]

aviathorhi

I accept your gracious appology.

the internet actually stinks and I miss REAL HANGAR FLYING...pilots in the ready room or wherever just talking

[Tarq57]

I work at a single runway aerodrome in class C airspace. The standard missed approach for either runway follows the initial departure track of all the SIDS, due to terrain considerations.

I can tell you that if you are on a visual approach at this aerodrome, and have to go around, and decide to carry out an instrument missed approach, rather than entering the circuit, sooner or later you're likely to get a face full of aeroplane.

If you're on a visual approach, and are unable to enter the circuit from an overshoot, you need to tell ATC. The earlier the better. (Like, when requesting the visual approach.) Waiting till short final is too late.



The appropriate missed approach to perform in this instance would be the MA for the instrument approach broadcast on the ATIS.

The requirements are spelled out in the AIP. (NZ)

If the weather in the circuit area deteriorates during your approach, just make a D and inform ATC asap. Hopefully ATC will have observed the deterioration, and taken it into account.

In a perfect world, the ever-changing matrix we work in would take the regs and procedures into account. Sometimes it doesn't. (Norty weather.) One of the problems inherent in doing every little thing according to some procedure, is that a situation gradually develops that nobody remembers how to use common sense any more.

[bubbers44]

Doing a ndb approach into Rno in A 737 we broke out at minimums and the airliner ahead of us was still on the runway so we were told to go around. I asked if we should do the published ndb missed and they said yes. As I started the left turn they said don,t turn left so I asked what heading they wanted. They didn't respond so we continued the published missed back to the north to avoid close in terrain. I knew another airliner was behind us but also had mountains in front of us. They finally gave us a heading to sort things out. We were not on a visual approach but the ils was out and we followed all the rules and still confusion set in because they forgot the NDB missed was not the same as the ILS missed.