Noise Abatement Missed Approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Asia
Age: 49
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise Abatement Missed Approach
hello all,
I can't find any reference, maybe because it is called Noise Abatement departure procedure and not noise abatement missed approach procedure.
are we required to reduce thrust and accelerate on the missed approach following the NADP guideline for that runway?
thanks
I can't find any reference, maybe because it is called Noise Abatement departure procedure and not noise abatement missed approach procedure.
are we required to reduce thrust and accelerate on the missed approach following the NADP guideline for that runway?
thanks
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise abatement is not used in missed approach procedures, MA is considered a non-normal event, and noise abatement does not apply.
I have seen a few places that state to reduce power after safety executing the missed approach, but noise abatement can never compromise flight safety.
I have seen a few places that state to reduce power after safety executing the missed approach, but noise abatement can never compromise flight safety.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the bus we sort of do a missed approach NA on our main base which has a NADP. On the go around page we leave the thrust reduction altitude by default, but we change the acceleration altitude to that of the NADP. Mind you, I haven't heard this is a requirement and I suspect this is more of an adopted practice than something mandatory, as it isn't even written in our SOPs
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Services Australia:
"Every major airport has Noise Abatement Procedures (NAPs), which are designed to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the community. They include procedures for runway use and flight paths to reduce flights over residential areas, as well as the designation of noise abatement areas. NAPs are implemented by air traffic control (ATC) but their use is not mandatory and is subject to weather conditions and aircraft requirements."
"Every major airport has Noise Abatement Procedures (NAPs), which are designed to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the community. They include procedures for runway use and flight paths to reduce flights over residential areas, as well as the designation of noise abatement areas. NAPs are implemented by air traffic control (ATC) but their use is not mandatory and is subject to weather conditions and aircraft requirements."
Originally Posted by Underfire
NAPs are implemented by air traffic control (ATC) but their use is not mandatory
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, that is directly from Air Services Website:
Noise abatement procedures | Airservices
Now, about being unprofessional....
Noise abatement procedures | Airservices
Posting such misleading info is unprofessional
As I said, Underfire read your AIP. Quoting blurb from a for-the-public website is no excuse, especially given your apparent occupation as an designer of RNAV approaches who, I would have thought, would have a good handle on the regulatory requirements of departures and arrivals, including NAP.
Noise Abatement Procedures are very much in force in Australia, regardless of what some office-wally has posted on any public website.
Noise Abatement Procedures are very much in force in Australia, regardless of what some office-wally has posted on any public website.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bloggs, note that in my post #5, it begins with Air Services Australia? It has nothing to do with me, it was a direct quote from ASA has on their website.
Did you comprehend that the OP question was about NAP missed approach, speaking of design, do you have an issue with my response in post #3?
Did you comprehend that the OP question was about NAP missed approach, speaking of design, do you have an issue with my response in post #3?
Underfire, I am not in the habit of trawling the Internet, copying and pasting furphies (while giving the impression that it is true), if that's what you are getting at... 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not in the habit of trawling the Internet, copying and pasting furphies (while giving the impression that it is true),
Why cant you simply answer the OP, or the questions? FYI, as I stated before, I posted the blurb from ASA, more as a flippant point, showing what their website states.
Check your AIP, perhaps Sydney... what does it state about missed approach?
(if I cut/paste from the AIP, is it a furphies(?), or is just the ASA website fake?)
So I will let you look it up yourself.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missed approach is not same as take off. Aircraft speed, configuration, thrust, GA track and vertical path are different. The vertical path of a go around starts before the landing threshold and at least at 100/200 ft. So GA and TO cannot be spoken in the same breath. GA has its own requirements and if noise abetments were to be applicable it would have been separately stated. Requirements of take off cannot be applicable to a GA.
Last edited by vilas; 10th Jul 2016 at 11:51.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Mediterranean
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can adjust the altitude at which you start your acceleration for cleanup if necessary depending on SOP of course, eg. 1500' iso 800' or vv.
With a 737 you are typically higher than 1000' AGL by the end of the runway if using full GA thrust depending on many factors of course.
Typically you would use much lot less thrust than that anyway (thus less noise) in order to get a more controlled rate of climb.
With a 737 you are typically higher than 1000' AGL by the end of the runway if using full GA thrust depending on many factors of course.
Typically you would use much lot less thrust than that anyway (thus less noise) in order to get a more controlled rate of climb.
