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

When is an approach complete?

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

When is an approach complete?

Old 29th Dec 2012, 23:29
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 382
When I was age 25 I wasn't dry behind the ears either.
Hahah Good one!

I may be younger than you, but I happen to know the procedures and rules better than you do, sir.
italia458 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 00:17
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,330
Italia458

Just a personal thought, but when you have to make insults or swipes at people, you're losing the argument. I'd guess (in fact, know) that sterpster has a broad background in approach design and charting. Please tone down the pretentious "I know better" attitude.

You are correct, technically, about the NORDO possibility, but the real world doesn't always work perfectly. In any case, the NORDO aircraft would be "protected" by ATC clearing the airspace, calling for the filed alternate and planning for the NORDO aircraft to fly airways to that alternate.

GF

Last edited by galaxy flyer; 30th Dec 2012 at 00:23.
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 00:31
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 382
GF...

Just a personal thought, but when you have to make insults or swipes at people, you're losing the argument.
I'd usually agree with you. But this is something that I've taught every multi-IFR student and is, IMO, one of the very basic rules of IFR. I thought it to be ridiculous to see the arguments aterpster was supporting. And I find it even more ridiculous to learn that he has a broad background in approach design!

Maybe I should have just shook my head and not said anything.

You are correct, technically, about the NORDO possibility, but the real world doesn't always work perfectly. In any case, the NORDO aircraft would be "protected" by ATC clearing the airspace, calling for the filed alternate and planning for the NORDO aircraft to fly airways to that alternate.
Exactly! That is why we have procedures for NORDO at ALL stages of flight. The 'perfect' world would have you always getting vectors or a new clearance immediately after your missed approach and you wouldn't even need missed approach instructions. Also, the procedure of holding at your clearance limit isn't strictly a NORDO procedure - ATC might be quite busy with other traffic and isn't able to get you a further clearance right away. So he can just leave you be and know that you will hold at your clearance limit... hopefully! I'm hoping all the IFR pilots out there actually do know to hold at the clearance limit.
italia458 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 02:09
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 379
If you are not making a visual approach, you are making an instrument approach. It is academic where the "landing" commences. Cat 3 autoland rollout may be a landing to all, but it is also part of the approach. Circling in lower weather conditions than required for a visual approach is part of an instrument approach. Lined up on finals with less weather than required for a visual approach is part of an instrument approach. Ditto for touchdown and rollout. It might be a landing but it is still an instrument approach.

Even after touchdown there is still a bit of flying to do. Lower the nose (or tail), aileron into x-wind, rudder to stay on the centreline.

Regulatory definitions are there so that someone in an office can read a FDR or QAR, write a report or determine limitations. Whatever those folks say, if you are following the instrument approach procedure from your Jep or other chart and conducting it in accordance with FOM instrument approach procedures, you are are on an instrument approach. You cannot abandon the procedure or the consideration that it is not a visual approach and landing, without just cause.

Last edited by autoflight; 30th Dec 2012 at 02:11.
autoflight is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 03:08
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,798
If that was actually a near mid-air, ATC was entirely at fault.
Oh!, The certainty of those with apparently limited experience.

Actually, it wasn't an ATC fault at all, the offender was the aircraft taking off, and on that day, (as every other day, really) ATC was depending on crews to adhere to their clearance, which, in this case, was "cleared for immediate takeoff", and we heard the clearance at about 4nm. The aircraft on the ground didn't comply with the clearance, as we became visual at about 2/300 ft., it was just starting to move.

ATC had no ground radar at the time, and, in theory, has provided necessary procedural separation. With us going around, and the other aircraft climbing up underneath us, "director" broke into the tower frequency, and gave is the immediate left turn already mentioned.

Given the very wide variety of actual standards of crews operating in UK airspace, to this day, UK NATS and local controllers do a remarkably good job.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 14:35
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,186
italia458

I may be younger than you, but I happen to know the procedures and rules better than you do, sir.
The sad part about that statement, besides its arrogance, you have no idea whether that is the case.

For all I know you may very well know the ICAO rules that apply outside of the United States better than I do. But, don't try to arm wrestle me over approach design and air traffic procedures in the United States, because you will lose. Sadly, you seem to rather attempt to save face by obscuring the technical aspects of a discussion. Perhaps you don't see the tactics you are using.

The original issue of the thread was about where an approach ends on landing. Then the issue of the missed approach came up. Then, you introduced the lost comm procedure, presumably with specific reference to the KBMQ RNAV 19 IAP.

You asserted that the lack of a missed approach holding pattern must be a typo. That is absurd, and I pointed you to source. But, you wouldn't accept the fact that both the missed approach text and the lack of a directive to chart a hold was not typo. That is simply an unreasonable assumption.

I pointed out that missed approach holds are the common design in the U.S. but not elsewhere. And, even in the U.S. it is not a mandatory design requirement.

Another point: I asked you to post or point to a reference to an ICAO document but you ignored that request.

Then you introduced the element of lost comm. Do you actually understand the lost comm regulation in the U.S.; FAR 91.185? If you did you would understand that 91.185 does NOT cover missing an approach. At that point, if a missed approach were to happen with lost comm, the procedure at that point is up to the pilot under his/her exercise of emergency authority. But, arguing about sustained lost comm is akin to arguing about angels on the head of a pin.

Not only was I involved with TERPS criteria as an ALPA safety committee member during my 27 years as a pilot with TWA I continue to be involved with TERPS, RNAV, PBN, and RNP AR to the present time.

When I was a young lion like you, before my airline days, I put quite a few folks through instrument training and flew a fair amount of IMC in light airplanes.

Then, I went with TWA and rather quickly found out how little I really knew about serious IFR flying. That was a real learning experience.

Flying the line for a career, as many of us here have, tends to make one mature and become a bit more humble. But, that doesn't mean walking away from a reasoned debate or reasonable difference of opinion.

Is your flying limited to light aircraft or are you presently working for an airline that flies Part 25 airplanes?

Know, please tell me with technical specificity and civility where I have made an invalid or incorrect technical statement in this thread.

That will be refreshing and appreciated.
aterpster is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 17:10
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 382
LeadSled...

I shouldn't have been so certain about it being ATC's fault. However, I was trying to point out that your experience doesn't justify your position that the approach clearance is only to the threshold and doesn't include the missed approach.

If you look at FAA AIM 5-4-21(h), the first sentence says: "A clearance for an instrument approach procedure includes a clearance to fly the published missed approach procedure, unless otherwise instructed by ATC."

The FAA is quite clear on that.

ICAO reference? - ICAO 8168 Volume II: 6.1.1.1 states: "A missed approach procedure shall be established for each instrument approach and shall specify a point where the procedure begins and a point where it ends."

Not the same as or as clear as the FAA reference, I'm sure I could dig more and get you an ICAO reference that states the same thing as the FAA AIM, but I'll just work with this 6.1.1.1 reference for now. Are you going to tell me that when you're cleared for an approach, you're not cleared to fly the missed approach even though 6.1.1.1 states that a missed approach procedure SHALL be established for each instrument approach? You're saying that when you get a clearance to fly an instrument approach procedure it includes clearance to fly the initial approach segment, intermediate approach segment (if applicable), and the final approach segment, but DOES NOT include clearance to fly the missed approach segment of the instrument approach procedure? I'd like a reference for that.

US TERPS 8260.3B CHG 21 para. 270 states: "A missed approach procedure shall be established for each instrument approach procedure (IAP)."

Canada TP 308 Change 5.3 para. 270 states: "A missed approach procedure shall be established for each IAP."

If you keep reading para. 270 in both the TP 308 document and TERPS document it says this: "The missed approach procedure must be simple, specify an altitude, and a clearance limit." - TP 308, "The missed approach procedure must be simple, specify a charted missed approach altitude (altitude at clearance limit), and a clearance limit fix/facility." - TERPS.

It's pretty clear that the clearance limit is at the end of the missed approach segment.

I could get you the reference for the CAR or FAR that says you must follow the instrument approach procedure but I think that's unnecessary - I will if you'd like though.


aterpster...

The ILS goes to the OCN VOR where holding impinges on a restricted area so ATC bets on the come that they will have radar prior to OCN.
And when an airplane reaches OCN and has been unable to get further clearance from ATC, what is the pilot supposed to do?

FAA AIM 4-4-3(e)(3) states: "If no holding pattern is charted and holding instructions have not been issued, the pilot should ask ATC for holding instructions prior to reaching the fix. This procedure will eliminate the possibility of an aircraft entering a holding pattern other than that desired by ATC. If unable to obtain holding instructions prior to reaching the fix (due to frequency congestion, stuck microphone, etc.), hold in a standard pattern on the course on which you approached the fix and request further clearance as soon as possible. In this event, the altitude/flight level of the aircraft at the clearance limit will be protected so that separation will be provided as required."

Unfortunately, the US TERPS and TP 308 documents just talk about procedure design and not what the pilot shall do.

TC AIM 9.26 is even more clear on the procedures to follow: "Should the pilot arrive at the missed approach holding fix prior to receiving further clearance, the pilot will:

(a) hold in a standard holding pattern on the inbound track used to arrive at the fix;
(b) if there is a published missed approach track to the fix, hold in a standard holding pattern inbound to the fix on this track;
(c) if there is a published shuttle or holding pattern at the fix, hold in this pattern regardless of the missed approach track to the fix; or
(d) if there are published missed approach holding instructions, hold in accordance with these."

I think I've provided sufficient evidence for why I teach that you are to hold at the clearance limit if you do not receive further clearance. I'm sure if I spent more time digging up references I could strengthen my point but I will wait for your response first.

Sorry for my arrogant comment, I was frustrated at the time.

As for my current position: I fly a large aeroplane under the commuter category rules. We need to have aircraft performance determined under very similar regulations to Part 25. I should be going to a Part 25 airplane soon though.

I will admit that the more experience I get, the more knowledgable I will be. But I don't think that my current airplane I'm flying provides any info into whether my knowledge about the subject is correct. I may be young but that doesn't mean my understanding of the system is flawed. I sure do have lots to learn and I could be wrong on a number of things.

Last edited by italia458; 30th Dec 2012 at 18:31.
italia458 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 18:38
  #68 (permalink)  
9.G
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
beyond any doubt, a clearance for the approach includes a clearance for a missed approach. One can't just freeze over the threshold, can he? I don't even understand why is there any discussion bout it? Basic rule anywhere in the world, if the clearance limit is reached pick up the hold if no further instructions from ATC were given. What else can one do? Fly into eternity?
9.G is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 18:48
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 382
9.G...

beyond any doubt, a clearance for the approach includes a clearance for a missed approach.
Yes!

Basic rule anywhere in the world, if the clearance limit is reached pick up the hold if no further instructions from ATC were given.
Yes!

Thank you! I was beginning to think that all professional pilots didn't know these rules. After all this is the "Professional Pilots RuNe".
italia458 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 19:09
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,330
Where did anyone argue that, upon reaching a clearance limit without further clearance, you shouldn't hold? You brought the issue of lost comm, which isn't addressed in the FARs. That's when you get to earn the paycheck and make a decision and execute it. There is not a procedure for every problem.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 19:22
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 382
GF...

I asked aterpster this: "What would you do once you reached the missed approach point in that case? Would you put the brakes on and just hover there?"

And his answer was: "It is 17.6 n.m. from the Runway 19 threshold to AMUSE. If I can't obtain further clearance prior to reaching AMUSE I have a problem."

I would not accept that as a correct answer if I was his instructor. Why didn't he say he would hold at AMUSE until obtaining further clearance?

You brought the issue of lost comm, which isn't addressed in the FARs. That's when you get to earn the paycheck and make a decision and execute it. There is not a procedure for every problem.
I agree. I shouldn't have talked about lost comm at that point as it wasn't applicable. I was simply asking what the procedure is when you reach the clearance limit without further clearance.
italia458 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 19:26
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 382
I believe aterpster is under the impression that if a hold is NOT depicted, then you don't hold at the clearance limit - which is incorrect.

I'm full aware that a hold doesn't have to be depicted at the clearance limit of an instrument approach, and in a number of cases it isn't. But that doesn't change the fact that once you reach your clearance limit, you are to hold!

Last edited by italia458; 30th Dec 2012 at 19:26.
italia458 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 20:07
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,330
I believe he's fully aware of it, too. This is a forum, not a "gotcha" USAF ground eval.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 20:16
  #74 (permalink)  
9.G
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
clearance limit

OK 465, there's none. See definition of the clearance limit:

CLEARANCE LIMIT
The point to which an aircraft is granted an air traffic control clearance.
9.G is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 21:24
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,186
italia458:
And when an airplane reaches OCN and has been unable to get further clearance from ATC, what is the pilot supposed to do?
It's a "paper" missed approach because the FAA cannot publish radar vectored missed approaches (except for ASR approaches) unlike the U.S. Navy in OKC465's example.

Having flown in and out of KCRQ many times over the years what happens when you miss the approach (and the tower is open), the tower says, "Maintain runway heading. Contact So Cal on 127.3"
When the tower is closed you remain with SoCal for the approach and any possible missed approach. I've never flown the approach when the tower is closed so I don't know exactly how it is handled then.

But, the track to OCN is a paper procedure.

Note the RNAV "Y" and RNAV RNP "Z" for the same runway. They go straight ahead to a holding pattern.
aterpster is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 21:32
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 382
aterpster...

I understand that operationally you hardly ever fly the published missed approach. However, the point I was trying to make is that if you were to reach the clearance limit without further clearance (for whatever reason!), you are to hold at the clearance limit.

I'm still not sure if you're on the same page as me since you've refused to acknowledge my statement - either in agreement or disagreement.
italia458 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 21:36
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
I understand that operationally you hardly ever fly the published missed approach.
Really?
You get to just make stuff up as you go missed?
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2012, 21:39
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 382
FlightPath...

You must have missed something when you quoted me...

I understand that operationally you hardly ever fly the published missed approach.
italia458 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2012, 13:14
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,186
FlightPathOBN:

Really?
You get to just make stuff up as you go missed?
Read my Post #82.

I realize you are a designer but likely not a pilot or you would know at busy radar terminal areas ATC often supercedes the published missed approach with a radar vectored missed approach.
aterpster is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2012, 15:57
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
As most published approaches are along the lines of 'straight ahead' ...

and the Part 77 surfaces, I see little deviation available before that is reached...
FlightPathOBN is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.