Easy
 

1500' AAL for Jet A/C
1000' AAL for non Jet A/C

Who said anything about flying a visual circuit. It could be a visual straight-in approach.

Just because the airport is reporting an RVR of 800m it does not mean that during the approach you can not be in VMC and visual all the way to touchdown.

Dead right we are not circling, circling requires a visibility of 2400m in a CAT C aircraft but if we can satisfy the requirements we can make a visual approach in something less than that.

Imagine Instrument approach is an ILS to 27 but the wind favours 09 which has no approach procedure. You are approching from the west and there is some sea harr to the east partially encroaching on the aerodrome. The RVR is 1400m - good enough to

a) complete a straight-in ILS

or

b) a visual straight-in 09 - if you can satisfy the requirements for a visual approach

but not a circling approach !!

So what do you do if you have to make a missed approach at 100ft on final 09?

I will say it again - visual approach is one where it is made up of random parts - nothing prevents it being briefed. There is no defined missed approach so it would be good practice to find out and brief in advance what all the team expects. By team I mean ATC as well as your nearest colleague.

Well, I call that 'reductio ad absurdum' - and I debated not replying, but....

1) Unless you are suggesting Leuchars with both ILS and PAR off on 09 when ATC (in my day) may have allowed that, I cannot see any civil airport doing so in that weather. "Runway in use 27 - take it or leave it". SATCO would be having kittens. Keflavik or others in reasonable weather, yes

2) If 1) pertains, then obviously I would establish what ATC wanted for a g/a since I would be flying against the traffic/runway in use, and would in any case probably NOT be able to g/a into a visual circuit with your quoted 'Haar' over Tentsmuir. Again, since it would be a g/a into an ILS 27, ATC need to be in the loop.

Altogether, DFC, a bit of a wildie!

(In fact, I'd probably have been off to Lossie or Edinburgh on the usual 'fumes':))

Capt Groper,

Documentation please !

In Canada and the US ( I do not know about JAA or CAA rules) the applicable AIMs make it clear that circuit altitude is 1000 above airport elevation unless otherwise noted.

Others pilots I know think 1500 for jets but no one can document it. Flight Safety apparently teach 1500 for jets, but again no documentation except their own manuals.

Anyone ?

best regards,

Bruce Waddington

My Error:
 

I will conitnue to read this thread and learn more.:ok:

I'm with you BOAC on this one. Once again the purpose of a visual ATC-wise is to place an aircraft onto position, preferably on final, from which the pilot will be able it to complete the valid INSTRUMENT procedure completely or partially by visual means. Once reported visual with the RWY and reasonable grounds exist that safe landing can be accomplished ATCO is simply relieved of responsibility to provide adequate obstacle clearance not the IFR traffic separation though. Flying to any controlled aerodrome there'll be a valid IFR procedure in place let it be PAR SRA. It will be on the ATIS therefore there'll always be a valid IFR procedure. In your example most probably it'll be PAR or SAR approach for 09 therefore there'll be a valid IFR procedure for 09 with it's associated missed approach procedure. Look at it this way you're at the minima, say 400 ft, and you have acquired visual reference and decide to continue so you're visual now aren't you? At 200 ft you've lost it so what you do? You gonna fly a MA for this approach. Same story if you were at 1500 ft and reported visual. Reporting visual doesn't cancel IFR procedure it only shift the responsibility for adequate obstacle clearance from ATCO to the pilot. I've encountered it both were ATC instructed to follow published and RV missed. In reality not a big drama.
Cheers :ok:

We are a bit 'off track' here, but for Bruce - there is nothing to prevent a circuit at 200' AGL if ATC/airport regulations/obstacles and company limitations do not bar. I'm pretty sure that '1500' feet for jet has grown to become 'folk-lore' through the choice of it in standard circuit training in the sim and for real. 1000' is equally comfortable and safe for a big jet. As I said watching RAM many years ago scorching around CBA at 500' was enjoyable!

9.g - I have to disagree with you on the connection between an IAP and a visual approach. They are not bound together. The IAP can of course progress into a 'visual' but the visual does NOT depend on an IAP. I have many times arrived visually at varying parts of the visual circuit, anywhere between overhead and final, at different speeds and altitudes, at airfields all over the world - often without any form of IAP. All with the approval and knowledge of the relevant ATC unit. Without cancellation of IFR the responsibility for separation from traffic remains, of course, with ATC, but a simple check with them about your intentions - "xxx going around, request left-hand circuit" should cover that and you SHOULD yourself also be aware of the position of any possible conflicting traffic.

BOAC, true visual doesn't depend on IAP and one can fly visual from any possible direction and altitudes. surely not neither does it cancel an IFR procedure in place for the RWY. In other words you see the RWY on downwind 27 at 5000 ft and report visual to the tower. ATIS promulgates ILS 27 in use. ATC clears you for a visual 27. So far so good. You being able to land on 27 by visual means doesn't cancel a valid ILS 27, doesn't it? Neither does it convert your flight into a VFR one, doesn't it? Consequently in my understanding one has got two choices for MA either published MA for the IAP in place or RV. That's the whole point. The only time when there's no valid IAP is when one flies to uncontrolled aerodrome in which case IFR will have to be canceled and change of rules from IFR to VFR will have to be accomplished. In this case the way to assure traffic separation is to stick to the VFR traffic pattern e.g 1500 ft LT. Lack of clear explanatory material causes lots of confusion on this topic. So far I haven't seen anyone in EU trying to join a VFR traffic circuit after MA.
Cheers.:ok:

- 'ATIS' does not constitute a clearance - it is 'I' - 'Information'. If the clearance is for Visual that is it. Not sure what 'RV' is? Also I'm having a bit of trouble with the punctuation here "surely not neither does it cancel an IFR procedure"?
- bearing in mind that:-
1) A visual these days:{
2) A G/A from such

is an extremely rare event I am not really surprised!

Ok let's start from the scratch once again.
In our case it'd be ILS 27 which would partly or completely completed by visual means. The mere fact of one flying visual with terrain doesn't waive ILS in use and flying under IFR bounds one to the published procedures unless RV. (radar vectored). Well those of us involved in training do shoot quite few MA and so far it was either published MA or RV. IOTW clearance to execute visual doesn't waive IAP in place for this RWY and IF rules are to be followed. ATCO guys would shed some light on it I'm sure about it.
Cheers:ok:

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/388...ml#post5202084

This was the post that seemed to answer the question when I asked in the ATC forum.

9.g - what you guys do in 'training' is not really relevant here - as we know 'training' and reality can often be widely separated.

If I may borrow your (EU OPS) quote and your highlighting?It is becoming sadly apparent that those in the flying world and ATC who cannot live with sensible, intelligent and negotiated solutions to problems will need yet another RULE to cover this! :ugh:

It seems to me that everyone is trying to reinvent the wheel here. If you are making a visual approach, you are demonstrably NOT making an instrument approach. To my mind, this only happens when you can actually SEE the runway, from a goodly distance away - I'm talking at least 10 or even up to 30 miles, depending on your knowledge of the place!

So, you've put yourself in the situation and called "visual" and ATC has said (maybe to themselves... bloody ripper!), then cleared you for visual approach, call tower... blah, blah, blah. Okay, so far so good.

So there you are, configuring for the final approach, going through final approach and pre-landing checks. However, Murphy's Law intervenes...

1. Too hot and too high... oops!
2. Dumass Airlines taxies onto the runway in the mistaken belief that they have a clearance... oops!
3. Any other kind of... ooops!

So now, as the Captain of the inbound aircraft, who's been given clearance to land by the Tower (after transfer for Radar/Approach/WhatBloodyEver), there is now a very valid reason why you can't land on the runway ahead of you, in weather conditions that are really good for visual approach, etc. What are you going to do?

This is the dilemma at the heart of the problem, so far as I'm concerned. The fact is that I will ALWAYS call visual as soon as I can see the runway, in wx conditions that assure me of continued visual reference - this is SOP, so far as I'm concerned and I will ALWAYS insist that PF briefs for this and any go-around for the unforeseen!

The brief is, essentially, to climb straight ahead on runway heading, call ATC - if they haven't already seen the manoeuvre and already done the right thing by giving instructions that we've been too busy to acknowledge. After whatever R/T exchange has been necessary, we FOLLOW the instructions from ATC to help us avoid traffic conflicts.

Heaven knows we're MUCH too busy, at least initially, to concentrate on TAWS or EGPWS, or anything like that - we aviate, navigate and communicate! Why is that so difficult? If anyone needs a book reference for that, look up your own local airmanship guide! You DON'T depend on ATC for your initial action or even your initial navigation.

How long will it take you to get the g/a going along runway heading, to sort out the aeroplane and it's navigation straight ahead - and then talk to ATC? I'll bet that you're all switched on enough for that all to happen while your aeroplane is within the control zone airspace.

Yes, in MY brief for a visual approach, I set the SOP altitude for the traffic pattern, for the g/a. I cancel that when it is certain that I can land - and I can SEE other aircraft on the ground are going to be clear of the runway. That too, is SOP, and part of the approach briefing.

Let's not try to reinvent the wheel here. Let's just be professionals and make some PROFESSIONAL decisions that will keep us and our pax alive. That decision starts at the point where we decide to call "visual", in the interests of saving the company some time - and money. Let's not go off half-cocked in this!

True... Many possible variations of which part may have been completed which not etc.
Here is the answer from Heathrow director So there we go.
Cheerio :ok:

"In Canada and the US ( I do not know about JAA or CAA rules) the applicable AIMs make it clear that circuit altitude is 1000 above airport elevation unless otherwise noted.

Others pilots I know think 1500 for jets but no one can document it. Flight Safety apparently teach 1500 for jets, but again no documentation except their own manuals."

Bruce, haven't really been following this thread, but does this address the 1500 ft?

Far 91.126 (e) Minimum altitudes when operating to an airport in Class D airspace. (1) Unless required by the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria, each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane must enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above the elevation of the airport and maintain at least 1,500 feet until further descent is required for a safe landing.

Applies to class C and B too, if I read it correctly.

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... ;););)

...And btw, methinks the wheel is still spinning round... and the sun going down.... :ok::ok::ok:

ICAO —

1.
Initial Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure between the initial approach fix and the intermediate approach fix or, where applicable, the final approach fix or point.
2.
Intermediate Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure between either the intermediate approach fix and the final approach fix or point, or between the end of a reversal, race track or dead reckoning track procedure and the final approach fix or point, as appropriate.
3.
Final Approach — That segment of an instrument approach procedure in which alignment and descent for landing are accomplished.
4.
Missed Approach Procedure — The procedure to be followed if the approach cannot be continued.

USA —

1.
Initial Approach — The segment between the initial approach fix and the intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is established on the intermediate course or final course.
2.
Intermediate Approach — The segment between the intermediate fix or point and the final approach fix.
3.
Final Approach — The segment between the final approach fix or point and the runway, airport or missed approach point.
4.
Missed Approach — The segment between the missed approach point, or point of arrival at decision height, and the missed approach fix at the prescribed altitude.

VISUAL APPROACH (ICAO)
An approach by an IFR flight when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed in visual reference to terrain.

VISUAL APPROACH (USA)
An approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan which authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and under the control of the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above 1000 feet and visibility of 3 miles or greater.

Methinks that explains different views on the topic on both sides of the pond.
Cheerio :ok:

Methinks, :=:=:=...
There is no published MAP when on visual approach...
That's the rule...if you want to be purely ruled....

Excerpt from 4444
We'll get there sooner or later...:ok:

...So, 9.G, where do you find the definition of the G/A leg during a visual approach in that ICAO Doc.4444 extract ?...

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, 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 :ok:

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? :D

Regards,

DFC

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...

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

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 :ok:

9G:
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?" :ok:

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!

bayete, try to read it again, would you?
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 :ok:

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:ugh: 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:ugh:

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.
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.

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.
you have my vote on this one.
Cheerio.

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.

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.

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.:ok:

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.