The whole point is that you are not doing the IAP. That is where the confusion arises with regard to what missed approach procedure to do.

There is no obstacle clearance requriements and no protected area and no missed approach point and no missed approach procedure for a visual approach.

How can you have a publsied missed approach procedure for a procedure that is not published?

Here is a good example - The weather is CAVOK. You are being vectored for the ILS 23R at Manchester. While 5nm north of the field You request and are cleared for a visual approach number 1. Just after that, the ILS goes off the air. Do you now have a problem? How are you going to proceed since under your personal rule, you are still flying the ILS, you simply have the ability to cut some corners and are still flying the ILS IAP?

If I am flying a visual approach, I really don't care if all the approach aids fail. After all, I am already visual and I do not need them to guide me to a point where I can continue visually - which after all is the whoe reason for an IAP.

Have flown a lot of ILS with circle to land on opposite runway recently and have noticed confusion from pilots when at VMC(OCA) (CIRCLE TO LAND MINIMA). At minima they instictively want to climb to VFR Circuit height rather than maintain the minima specified for the circling approach. In weather this may take you back into cloud and no longer able to maintain VMC. They state that it feels weird to be flying below normal traffic pattern.

If unable to maintain VMC while circling then initiate the missed approach for the ILS that you flew prior to circling whilst staying within the protected area with runway and turning towards the runway.

That's my understanding and if you break off at normal traffic pattern height there is no point in having a lower circling minima specified and the chances are higher that you will not maintain VMC so what was the point ?

Found this ref in my CATS ATPL study guide hope it helps clarify: :ok:
Key point is that there is s published minimum alt/height for visual circling
Descent below MDA/H should not be made until:
• visual reference has been established and can be maintained;
• the pilot has the landing threshold in sight; and
• the required obstacle clearance can be maintained and the aircraft is in a position to carry out a landing.A circling approach is a visual flight manoeuvre. Each circling situation is different because of variables such as runway layout, final approach track, wind velocity and meteorological conditions. Therefore, there can be no single procedure designed that will cater for conducting a circling approach in every situation. After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment (i.e., the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway) should be kept in sight while at MDA/H for circling.If visual reference is lost while circling to land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed. It is expected that the pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome where he will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.As the circling manoeuvre may be accomplished in more than one direction, different patterns will be required to establish the aircraft on the prescribed missed approach course depending on its position at the time visual reference is lost.

The OP asked about g/a from a visual approach, not a circling approach.

I find it hillarious that at Man you would hook it into a visual circuit. I have actually been in that very situation of having a visual missed approach at Man on that very runway due to Air France doing there usual and stuffing up everyone crossing the active. Went around from 500ft followed the ILS missed approach got handed over to radar and vectored in for another go. Off 23R with a left circuit you would get right in the way of 23L out bounds. If you did a right hand circuit appart from the noise complaints you would probarly get it in the ear because half of the trafford center would phone the police thinking that another 9/11 was kicking off.


I don't think a bunch of pilots are going to decide this, I suspect we are going to have to get some ATC input and I suspect that it will be very different depending which country they are from.

And I can now see why so many old but not bold skipper's will refuse point blank to do a visual approach.

- I suspect your answer lies more in http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ys-airbus.html plus the possibility that they spent their RHS time flying with similar Captains:) and are now in doubt about their potential do one - a coupled ILS is so much easier, isn't it?

I don't see how you can justify following the missed approach of the ILS for that runway if the ILS is U/S?

Agreed... wouldn't you then fly the missed approach procedure for the instrument approach in operation (VOR or whatever)?

In the circumstance raised above where you've been vectored for an ILS approach, chosen to finish visually and then the ILS goes off the air during the visual segment; if part of the missed approach procedure is dependent on the ILS DME, for example, I would probably ask for vectors from ATC. If the missed approach didn't depend on any element of the ILS, but instead on other navigation aids, we would probably just fly it as briefed.

At my home base we do visual approaches regularly, and at no point do we ever brief a different missed approach for a visual completion than for following the ILS all the way down. The missed approach altitude is set the same, and the procedure in the FMGC is unchanged from the missed approach for the in-use instrument procedure.

I think discussion about IAPs is maybe a moot point because there are many different ways that you may come to be flying a visual approach, ie breaking off from an ILS, joining downwind/crosswind/base or braking off overhead on an NDB etc.
At the end of the day common sense must prevail regardless of the ICAO/FAA rules and as we see here by this discussion they are not very clear.
Look at where you are, would I turn downwind at CCT height if going missed from 27 at Le Bourget? No Paris City to the left and CDG to the right! (Would I fly a visual App at Le Bourget probably not!)
In less congested airspace, on a nice day I certainly would fly a visual approach to save time/fuel etc. To ATC I might use the phrase "Confirm circuit height and direction in the event of a go around?" This gives them the opportunity to think about what they might want you to do in the event of a missed. 90% of the time they will say something like "maintain 1500' RH pattern" or similar.

cut the long story short I avoid flying visual approaches as much as I can for the all aforesaid reasons. In case needed clear instructions are requested for a go around. Methinks ATC fellas might put an end to the debate with a conclusive answer.
DFC, J.T has nailed it. My understanding of performance class A aircraft under EU OPS is to be assumed using IFR based on PANS OPS design criterion. As mentioned before certain aerodromes might impose additional minima like VIS ceiling (not VFR) and a clear pictorial and written procedures must be made available to the crew. This thesis is simply confirmed by a restriction imposed by operators AOC annexes and part A restriction to fly VFR.
Regardless of whatever IAP you fly, whenever visual cues are acquired and landing can be performed safely nothing precludes one from doing so. Conversely, whenever visual references are lost, even-though they were established at the minimum etc a go around must be performed.

Dear moderators if we could get a conclusive answer from ATC guys please much appreciated.
Cheers :ok:

I think No matter how well you think you know the airspace/airfield, it is a very good idea to always ask the controller about what missed approach he expects you to do. I mean it's not as if we are flying visual approaches 6 times a day. flying is not rocket science. just be sensible and at the end of the day the idea is not to kill yourself and others.

Not only the missed approach needs care.

Many aerodromes have noise requriements relating to the approach also. These usually are along the lines of not flying lower than an aircraft making a normal 3 degree approach, not joining final approach below xxxxx feet etc.

---------

9.G,

I never mentioned VFR (or IFR). If you read the performance requirements in EU-OPS you will see that the size of the area in which obstacles have to be cleared is reduced if the pilot can determine their track i.e. navigate visually.

In the case of the missed approach - if you decide to go-arround late i.e. below the DA / MDA, you have left the protected area of the approach procedure and it's associaled missed approach. You should still have the protection of the balked landing surface and other obstacle limitation surfaces in the vicinity of the aerodrome (or be aware of the obstacles !!) but starting a missed approach from 50ft and then having an engine failure (always alowed for in performance A) can mean that even if you flew the full ILS you will not be able to clear the obstacles in the published missed approach for that procedure.

You and your company should be prepared for such a situation.

DFC It's your words my friend. Never mind we're here not to accuse but to seek for conclusive answers.
SE go around from 50 ft DH CAT III SINGLE for Airbus is a standard procedure for recurrent LVO evaluation. It's operators responsibility to make sure all performance criteria are met and in case not contingency procedures must be made available to the crew. Therefore when you brief your approach you MUST among the other things make sure landing and go around performance are met in EO conditions. Usually the operator has got a policy in place and 10-7 Jeppesen charts specifying SE procedures to be followed in both TO and GA. As a general rule whenever below MLW and MA climb gradient doesn't exceed 2.5% or VISUAL published MA can be followed otherwise contingency procedure is ought to be flown.
Cheers:ok:

Glad you had a great time there ; well outside KCH, it's pretty backwater to me........mossie filled jungles, swamps, longhouses with possible headhunters ( no, not the corporate kind! ), etc. Even in KCH town, litter filled drains with people squatting on the side and eating the smelly spiky fruit and tossing husks and seeds into the stinking muck! Well you do have Anglophiles having high tea in posh bungalows thanks to the CM with a pommie wifey, but overall not really my kind of place for long term!

As for Calvin, I think you're right as I do remember some people referring to him as such....maybe because of his initials. Quite sometime back, so such things are quite hazy but the incident still crystal clear!

So it seems that we are all wrong because its not even defined it really is just make it up as your going along. Unless anyone has any better info I for one am going to start asking what the missed approach is after accepting a visual.

MJ, I told you that... ;);) ... btw in wich ICAO Doc. did you find your info ??...
Or did you find that in a non ICAO branded manual ??..

I got it from a FAA v ICAO differences document by some bloke in the US

Unfortunately I shut the window its a bitch to find it.

Its in annex 2 but that seems to be a world secret and can only be purchased

I'd forgotten that FAA mentioned it... so Canada plus one...
I'll check again ICAO annex2....
See u... MJ...

Nothing in ICAO Annex2 nor in ICAO Acfts Operations Doc.8168...

Errr... if it isn't defined by ICAO, why would you expect to find anything about it in any of their SARPs? :confused:

The problem with getting info from "some bloke in the USA" is you can't really rely in the information.
In AIM/FAR 2008 by Charles Spense (link below found on Google Books) in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, he quotes "Visual Approach [ICAO]: An approach by an IFR flight when either part or all of an instrument approach is not completed and the approach is executed in visual reference to terrain." So maybe it is defined by ICAO.
He unfourtunately does not say where he gets his reference from.
William Kershner seems to say the same in his book "The Instrument Flight Manual" but I can't see the whole page to see if he has a reference.

If the definition is correct it still does not help us with the answer to the question because if the instument approach is not completed does that mean it is no longer valid and therefore there is no missed approach to be flown?

Off topic, I would suggest to anyone who writes their own 'Quick notes', 'Blue Brain' etc to write the reference for any info/quotes/rules in the margin for ease of updating and for anyone else that you share you guides with. Eg Ops Man Pt 1 CH7

If you have a look in the ATC section a controller who is involved with sorting these sorts of issues out gave some information about what the current state of play is.

The international federation of Air traffic controllers is looking at the subject. After it being discussed its been kicked to committee and the recommendations being presented this year.

There really is no set rules. So if you don't like suprises while your going up like a fart in the bath while reconfiguring you have to ask what the missed approach is.

I love how people on PPRuNE make things so utterly complicated. It's quite simple. Go around procedure on runway heading and ADVISE ATC!!! How hard is that? Once you tell them you're missed they'll give an altitude and heading if applicable. Wow that was easy.

In your opinion yes it is that easy (by the way I agree with you, however if in doubt I might get a heads up from ATC first) but there are many people who believe that the correct course of action is to fly the missed approach procedure for the instrument approach for that runway.

This discussion is to try and find out why there are differing opinions and which is correct. Where do you get the information that your way is the correct way? Do you have a reference?

If you look at the ATC forum thread you see that this is being discussed at higher levels than ours and has not been resolved.

You and others have missed the point that on a visual approach there IS no "instrument approach for that runway". How would you cope at an airfield with several IAPs, each with different g/a procedures and none of which you have flown?

The only time your proposal is valid is when an aircraft flies an IAP, declares 'visual' and without delay announces 'going around' when I'm sure all controllers would expect what you say. Assuming that the intention of flying a 'visual approach' is to land at that airport rather than push off into possible IMC and the bundu, the visual circuit is where you would go. Initially straight ahead, talk to ATC with intentions, and they will let you know if that is possible or not, in which latter case they would probably 'direct' you.

Where I'm coming from is as such. When you accept a visual approach it is still an IFR procedure regardless of the fact you're using your Mark III eyeballs to position yourself for a safe landing. You're not flying a precision or non precision approach, you flying a VISUAL approach usually with a vector towards the airfield. Once you're cleared for that approach you're pretty much on your own to make the field. There is no published missed approach and even published visuals rarely if ever have some procedure in the event of a go around (I've never seen one with a published missed) so it simply defaults to a climb on runway heading and a timely call to ATC. What else is there to do?

I don't believe entering the pattern without ATC telling you to do so is the correct way to go. You have no assurance of clearance from traffic and obstacles. Generally the patch directly on runway heading is the safest bet and most likely where ATC would expect you to be on the missed following a visual approach. I will try to find some sources to back my claims for you.

Edit:

Going through a United FOM I happen to have it quotes:

"A visual approach is not an instrument approach procedure (IAP), and therefore does not include a missed approach segment or procedure. If a go-around is required, further clearance or instructions are issued by ATC to ensure separation from other IFR airplanes."

So stand by my acsertation to remain on runway heading while climbing and advise ATC. In my experience ATC will generally vector you in way that resembles a traffic pattern and give you a base turn to final. Or bring you all way to the back of the sequence. Hopefully it's the former. :}

Just noticed that the OP asked about altitude not route :ugh:- I should add, then, that the answer to his question is 'yes' - I would plan on 'normal' circuit height unless otherwise advised, exactly as L6 says - the main thing is not to stuff on full power and scream on up to MSA (unless you need to, of course...:))

BOAC you miss read my post.
I said I agree with flyr767 but that And as I said in an earlier post I would expect a visual of some sort with clarification from ATC.

bayete - my apologies - as you say, delete 'you and':ugh:

Aren't we making this a lot more complicated than need be?

A case of some common-sense which includes, if there is any ambiguity, telling ATC what you intend to do, or asking them what they want you to do?

After all, if you're "visual", chances are good that whether or not you proceed to the pattern altitude or the MA altitude you should otherwise be able to see where you're going and therefore avoid both other traffic and obstacles...especially if you've got TCAS and EGPWS as well.

In addition, I have a problem with, having declared being "visual", then placing the aircraft in a position where I'm no longer visual. I can see all kinds of folk getting upset about that, rightly so IMHO. In this case, I'd be onto tower in advance seeking clarification one way or the other.

As for tower not knowing what you're doing, can't they look out of the window as well?

So if you're shooting visuals when the cloudbase is below MA altitude I can see things become a little problematic.

As for the EO case, 9.G said it all...you have to have an idea of both your EO landing performance and your EO GA performance a priori with the situation becoming potentially more and more serious as you proceed below various minima.

FWIW, a local ATCO says, his expectation would be, here in the UK, that I follow the IAP MA.

Just a Yank, but I am confused about MA from a Visual--how much of a problem is this? IF one is cleared for the visual, why would you miss? It is VISUAL! Now a contact approach is a very different animal.

If tower has to deny a landing clearance, they will provide a procedure, usually back to radar at busy airports or 'up for the visual" at pattern altitude.

Not flying visuals because one cannot establish a missed approach procedure is a bit silly. BTW, ask a US controller for a miss procedure on a visual would get you gales of laughter.

GF

Go around in the pattern:confused:

you will have to refer to your company SOP , But normally you will join the normal Traffic pattren !

- could it be that one might just be one of those very few ones who just occasionally make mistakes?:ugh:

Back around...
 

just circle back.

In 800m RVR when there is no circling procedure?

How does that work then?

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'

Kuobin,

What altitude to set indeed !

There is quite a variety of opinions but here is what I would do based upon US and Canadian rules.

At a controlled airport I would set the missed approach altitude associated with the IFR approach in use for the runway I was landing on. Then in the event that I am directed by the controller to "follow the published missed approach" (highly unlikely by the way) the altitude alert is already set. If the controller tells me to fly to another altitude I reset the altitude alert. Note that if I was doing a visual to a runway with no IFR approach I would set circuit altitude.

At an uncontrolled airport I would set the circuit altitude, normally 1000 feet above airport elevation unless otherwise documented.

The only requirement in Canada and the US is;

1. At a controlled airport, follow ATC direction, and

2. At an uncontrolled airport, remain clear of cloud and land as soon as possible.

Since the US and Canadian authorities give no other guidance than that we are talking about technique, not the 'law'.

best regards,

Bruce Waddington