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not help us with the answer to the question because if the instument approach is not completed does that mean it is no longer valid and therefore there is no missed approach to be flown?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