bubbers...our airline had in its FOM that you could cancel IFR as long as you had VMC, airport in sight, within 25 nm of the airport and it makes sense in your situation...esp with people waiting for your arrival after an INRANGE call.

so I think you had the same thing and it was proper.

I thought so too but was never absolutely sure so did it when appropriate to not cause delays on the ground when I just wanted to go to the hotel. It takes that first first cool aid another couple of minutes away.

LeadSled:

I am suffering under U.S. rules where such would never, ever be the case.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to post the pertinent part of Annex 10, Volume 2 that sets forth the fact a pilot could be cleared for an instrument approach procedure with no where to go should there be no visual references at minimums.

Only my personal opinion, is that whenever not able to make a visual approach, you are still on instrument approach until taxy speed. Visual segments like circling approach could also be part of approach if conditions unsuitable for visual approach.

Some more esoteric pedantry for everyone's reading pleasure:

For most purposes, a circling maneuver included in an IAP would be considered a visual segment of an IAP. The manufacturer and certifying authority would consider the landing to begin at the threshold at 50' at Vref for the purpose of establishing landing distance for the performance charts. The ICAO taxonomy committee says landing begins when the flare is commenced. Some entities may consider any visual flight below the MDA of an IAP or pattern altitude if VFR to be within the definition of the landing phase. As near as I can tell nearly every organizational entity considers landing rollout to be within the landing phase and taxi to/from any point on an airport to be within the taxi phase.

Question: Why do they call it autoland if it's not part of the landing? ;)

Seriously though, I'm not having a go at anyone. I'm just trying to make the point that terminology can have very specific meaning for certain purposes.

Before he became a big radio and TV blowhard, Rush Limbaugh wrote an interesting (to me anyway) book called The Way Things Ought To Be. IIRC, it was in this book that he made a very obvious but profound observation: "Words mean things!"

westhawk

ok465:

terpster:

What I said previously:

"Most FAA IAPs have a charted missed approach holding pattern unlike many countries."

8260.3B requires for the terminus of a missed approach either holding or an end point in the en route environment. Having said that policy for the last few years has typically been to provide holding, en route terminus or not. But, not always. KCRQ, the airport near where I live has a missed approach hold for the two RNAV IAPs but not for the one ILS. 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. With the RNAV IAPs they can place a missed approach terminus waypoint wherever they want.

Re: KBMQ AMUSE is on airways but I suspect when the procedure is next revised there will be a holding pattern at AMUSE.

OK465...

In post #38 I described exactly how you are to hold once you reach the missed approach holding point. The reference for that is in the Transport Canada AIM as well as the FAA AIM. As for not depicting a holding pattern at the MAHP, there are reasons for that. Recall the 3 holding entries I wrote in post #38. There are two entries that don't include hold patterns on the plate: 1) If nothing depicted, hold inbound on the track you arrived at the point at. In that case, the missed approach instructions would have told you to go direct the MAHP at some point. The obstacle clearance doesn't require you to maintain a specific track while flying to the MAHP so, therefore, none is specified and you're allowed to hold inbound on the track that you happen to arrive on. 2) If a track inbound to the MAHP is depicted, hold inbound on that track. In that case, the missed approach instructions would have told you to intercept that specific track at some point, to fly direct to the MAHP. This could be due to obstacle clearance requirements. They don't need to depict a hold pattern in this case as every pilot should have been properly educated to know how they're supposed to hold in this case before getting their instrument rating! If they just depicted a hold pattern and said go direct to the fix for the missed approach, the pilot wouldn't intercept a specific track to the fix which would be bad if there were obstacles that penetrated the required obstacle clearance areas.

Those 3 entry patterns are really quite straight forward.

This is directed at others who do not understand instrument approach procedures ---> There is always a missed approach segment for an instrument approach procedure. ATC expects you to follow that procedure unless they give you specific missed approach instructions. If you show me an instrument approach procedure I'd be happy to show you where the missed approach instructions are depicted! :ok:

Westhawk...

Good words!

LeadSled...

If that was actually a near mid-air, ATC was entirely at fault.

OK465...

I just checked KLAS and KORH - all the approaches say "and hold" in the missed approach instructions. I'm not totally familiar with FAA procedures but it seems that it's normal to say "and hold" so I'd guess that the RNAV 19 is just a typo.

Anytime you're operating under IFR in controlled airspace you will require a clearance. Every clearance has a clearance limit. If you reach the clearance limit prior to receiving further clearance, you are to hold. I'm guessing that's why they don't specifically say "and hold" on Canadian plates - the clearance limit for an instrument approach being the MAHP.

For the non-European guys, in case you come here, we have several M Apps with no 'MAHP' published, but 'as directed' by ATC eg EGKK, EGLL

Highly unlikely it is a typo. I can pull the source if you like.

aterpster..

The source that says that it's NOT a typo? I'd love to see that! I already have a copy of the plate.

What would you do once you reached the missed approach point in that case? Would you put the brakes on and just hover there? :}

To everyone:

The FAA AIM paragraph 5-5-5 states the pilot and controller responsibilities. Have a read :ok:

Also read: FAA AIM 5-4-7(h) for more missed approach information.

And as previously mentioned some procedures in the US may leave one to consider their what if options.

As long as radar contact and communications with ATC are maintained this is fine. Though I suppose it might be interesting to know what ATC presume an aircraft will do if they go lost comm and miss the approach.

westhawk

The approach is over when ATC knows that you are down, off of it, out of the way. It's all about separation. It's really about them and their responsibility to have to watch you or not.

italia458
In the U.S. the source is the Form 8260-3 or -5, not some entity's approach chart. You can see the source for each of these RNAP IAPs at:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flig...dbr&nasrId=BMQ

Don't click on to the chart, rather click to the source. The textual missed approach data is on the right hand side. Note no charting instructions for a holding pattern for the Runway 19 IAP and the text agrees with that. Chances of a combined typo is about zero.

A discussion such as this one works a lot better without unwarranted sarcasm.

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.

h. If a missed approach is required, advise ATC and include the reason (unless initiated by ATC). Comply with the missed approach instructions for the instrument approach procedure being executed, unless otherwise directed by ATC.

That's what most of us have been alluding to.

aterpster...

That doesn't prove that it's a typo! What it does prove is that whoever makes charts from the source form is absolutely FANTASTIC at copying and ensuring whatever is on the source form gets onto the final approach plate.

They really should be teaching debating, and logic and reasoning courses in high school these days. :hmm:

Yes, that problem is a communications failure. Please continue to explain what you'd do now.

The thing is, this isn't a debate. It's clear that you're unfamiliar with the proper procedures.

Also, I could easily find an approach plate that has a MAHP more than 17.6NM from the runway AND also states "and hold" in the missed approach instructions. That would blow your argument away.

458:


When I was age 25 I wasn't dry behind the ears either.

okc465:

The military designers march to a different drummer than the FAA folks in OKC.

Hahah :ok: Good one!

I may be younger than you, but I happen to know the procedures and rules better than you do, sir.

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

GF...

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.

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.

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.

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!!

italia458

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.

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...

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.

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? :ok:

9.G...

Yes!

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".

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

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?

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.

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!

I believe he's fully aware of it, too. This is a forum, not a "gotcha" USAF ground eval.

GF

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. :ok:

italia458:
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...

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.

Really? :uhoh:
You get to just make stuff up as you go missed?

FlightPath...

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

FlightPathOBN:

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.

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...