<<Not sure where it's written down for you guys, but in our Heathrow Manual of Air Traffic Services it's in black and white that we can expect you to do the MAP for the original runway>>
Gonzo- please quote reference. Can this go in the ATC forum? It seems pretty relevant to ops today.

Indeed - my apologies

In every airport, for any approach (not talking about side step) you will fly the published missed apporach unless the atc gives you a diferent instruction... It happened once to me that I was making an ILS approach for a given runway and then was souposed to cirlce to the oposite runway, when we started to circle the atc said " In case of go around, fly heading 180 and climb 3000..." Of course, the atc would have expected us to make a missed approach for the original approach, that's why he made sure we wouldn't by giving us a diferent instruction...

If for some reason it's unsafe to do so in heathrow (when side steping), it's expectable that all controlers are told to give such instructions in time... I think that if your books say that you would expect all pilots to fly the original missed approach, then, that should be the correct proc. If making the missed approach for the runway you'r steping to was the correct and standard procedure, which applyed to every airport, then the atc controllers at heathrow wouldn't be instructed to promptly give go around instructions to "side steping" aircraft...

What do you think??

@downsouth

I can tell you how it works at EDDF with 25L/R.

A swingover from 25L to 25R is mostly offered as "are you interested in 25R?"

If confirmed, the ATCO just clears you to do so. That's it.

Now the confusion is perfect, cause I always thought and briefed th M/A for the runway my wheels will be on.....

That would be the MATS part 2, which isn't readily available to view.

Heathrow Airport MATS pt.2.

Section 1 (3.3)

3.3.2 VISUAL CHANGES OF LANDING RUNWAY

Controllers must be aware that any aircraft that is instructed to visually switch to an alternate runway, in the event of a missed approach, may expect to follow the instrument missed approach procedure for the original runway. Obviously this is not appropriate, therefore, if the aircraft is subsequently instructed to execute a missed approach, the procedure used must be included in the instruction.

This is not the standard international procedure, therefore controllers must place particular emphasis on ensuring that traffic making a visual approach will, if the need arises, execute the correct missed approach.

[my bolding]

Very interesting. Not all go-arounds are the result of ATC instructions, so maybe it would be a good idea for the new missed approach details to be given as soon as a visual switch is accepted, before a G/A might be started?

As far as I am aware EHAM is the exception to the rule. At EHAM you have to fly the missed approach of the landing runway. I will start looking for it, it is published in (I think) the Dutch AIP.
As we used to operate in and out of EHAM, with their sometimes close to impossible "swing overs" often, this came up at some point.

I will start looking but it has been a while.

GC

No, not missing something, and you are right about being perfectly safe, but...
The 1000 feet was/is used to accomodate less than desirable skills levels...and by this I refer to junior First Officers as well as some Captains that are having a bad hair day:rolleyes:
OTOH, small airline companies are not necessarily so constrained, and even with a large transport jet such as the L1011 that I fly, close in maneuvering if done properly is perfectly safe...and very rewarding from a handling perspective, especially for folks who enjoy hand flying the aeroplane, yours truly included.
And yes, we still do circling approaches, right down to the lowest minima possible, for a category D aircraft.
Handling skills....use 'em or lose 'em.

From a controller's perspective I would consider - and it is the assumption I made with my earlier post - a swing-over (or any similar manoeuvre) to be circling after an instrument approach. That is to say, the change to another landing runway is made visually and not a change to the ILS etc. nominated by ATC (in the latter case I would consider it to be an instrument approach to that other runway with the associated missed approach flown if it is necessary). The fact that certain aircraft operators have internal SOPs or flight profile monitoring systems that prevent pilots from accepting the manoeuvre is irrelevant to the main question here.

Reference to ICAO PANS-OPS (although I must admit that I'm not certain that it is the latest edition) includes the statementThis does not strictly describe a swing-over but it is the closest I can find. If one accepts that a swing-over is circling, then the definitive answer seems to be given by PANS-OPS - reproduced below:If, on the other hand, one does not accept a swing-over to be circling after an instrument approach, please disregard all the above!

- there is no need to be 'lined up' otherwise a circuit would be pretty well impossible:hmm:

Most operators require 'wings level' by around 400' which copes with most places.

Well remembered!

AD 2.22 EHAM
2.8.3 Missed approach while circling to land (contrary to ICAO doc. 8168 (PANS-OPS))

* inform ATC and
* turn to the intended landing runway, intercept the runway track MAG of that runway while climbing to 2000 ft AMSL.

Like Spitoon I cannot see how a swing-over would fit with any ICAO procedure other than VM(C).

Presumably Rainboe's employer doesn't permit VM(C) as there would be a lot of "phone calls" due to full-scale ILS deviations.

and I just found the reference! too late once again

GC

Interesting topic. I went into the AIM, 5-4-19 "Sidestep Maneuver" and 5-4-21 "Missed Approach". Neither one addresses the issue specifically. Logic would dictate, however, that one would need to fly the missed for that new runway, as it is likely designed to keep you out of someone's way, which the missed for the original runway might not.

How about it A/C A approaching 27L was offered a "swing" to 27R and A/C approaching 27R was offered a "swing" to 27L. The 27L missed app procedure is to turn left and the 27R one is to turn right.

If they follow the missed app procedure for the runway they were initially cleared to approach then at some point they'd be on a collision course.

L Met

I hate to disillusion anyone but with many go-around procedures ATC must act pretty quick to resolve a future conflict - that's just a fact of life with current traffic levels.

But, hey, if you want to carry on thinking up disaster scenarios that are incredibly unlikely to arise in the real world please feel free (but I'd prefer it if you did it on your own time). I guess you must be a reporter or TV producer....

Spitoon thanks for another classic PPRUNE post. What value did it add to this thread? When you've thought of one, get make to me boy.

As we may change the FMC selected rwy fast enaugh, we will have also the go-around route selected on FMC. After selecting 'go-around' next step will be to follow the selected route,which is for the new rwy.
I've been asking many of my coleagues what will they do in case of go-around...most common answer was 'I'll ask for vectors". Next answer was 'follow the go-around for new assigned rwy'...
One of the reasons was , as said before, at many airports with parallel rwys, the go-arounds are divergent, so as to avoid collision risk.
And if you expect us to follow the initial rwy go-around procedure,and we follow the new assigned rwy procedure, you think you will always be able to make yourself heard and understood fast enaugh over the radio?
I've personally seen a scary situation with two ,same company, aircrafts when one did a late take-off and the other one did a go-around above the previous one. The controller had no chance to make itself understood by the pilots, as both crews were fully occupied, and had also, almost the same callsigns. We just stood and watched...hopefully god was also watching that day.
So,try to make it simple..and safer.No side step...or issue the go-around instructions with the side-step clearance.

I cannot ever foresee a situation where we'd want you to follow the old missed approach, hence we would always give you appropriate instructions.

I think mandating that you have to follow the new runway's missed approach procedure is unworkable, as some switches happen very late, within four miles. Are flight crew really going to brief the new missed approach procedure in that time?

What we expect, and what we want (and then what happens) are two very different things.

We expect you to follow the old runway's procedure, because that is the 'worst case scenario', so that we (ATC) do not get complacent and believe you will follow the new runway's procedure.

@londonmet, the point is that ATC would act in your case. As it stands, a normal missed approach from 27L does not separate you from 27R departures. ATC still has to act to separate you. So a similarly serious situation could happen in normal ops, if ATC don't intervene...as we are all taught to do.

My thoughts exactly. :ok:

For UK ATC, we need to pause a moment and reread what has been said:
Gonzo said:
......implies that ATC may expect the plane to fly the MAP for the original runway- taken by many to mean that is what you should do.
Please reread MATS pt.2. as posted by Gonzo:
This is a warning to controllers that 'watch out- pilots in the event of a GA on a swingover approach may think they have to follow the original runway GA'! and 'Obviously this is not appropriate'.

It does not mean at all that pilots should follow the original GA as was implied by several posters- it is simply that the controller should be aware that pilots may do that! Therefore the controller should issue instructions to make it clear what to do.

Nowadays, pilots will reload the new runway into the FMs, giving the go-around procedure automatically, including tracking, as well as, if time, retuning the ILS. The thought process is 'quick, get the new runway in so the GA is set!' (I've been there several times). So despite getting a considerable amount of stick, I do not think I was incorrect in my assertion (at LHR at least), that it is impractical and unsafe, and not expected either, to fly the original GA. However, for reasons pointed out, many airlines have strict stabilised approach criteria, and those pilots know for a minor fuel or time saving, it is not worth the hassle of inviting follow up phone calls as to what the hell you were doing!

Very interesting topic, `coze that`s exactly what happened to me some time back in FRA !

(For all non-FRA users-missed 25L goes left turn/25R right turn )

We were on a 4 mile final ILS 25R when a heavy B747 started it`s takeoff roll. Same time a B 777 got line-up clearance behind the departing 74.
The TWR ATCO then switched to us " xyz 123 prepare for go around or you like to swing to 25L ?" We swung ! :p

No heads down,:= no FMC punshy, no ILS retune , just flightdirectors off and land.
The app/missed for 25L had been briefed before as well, just in case App ctrl would have switched us some time on intermediate or so.

When we touched the 777 was still on it`s roll. Imagine we would have pulled up and turned back to 25R ! :confused:

Happy ldgs
Angel

Rainboe:

Please note that the 1000' gate is a vertical profile gate and it does not require you to be aligned with the c/l. Similarly for the "hard" 500' gate.

Regarding lateral displacement, I think other fleets are similar to mine in that you are required to be aligned at 300'. It is up to you do judge accordingly, but these SOPs certainly permit a runway switch in VMC.

You will not receive a SESMA call for LOC deviation for a runway switch - it does happen and the SESMA rep will not waste the BALPA rep's (or the crews') time for a simple manoevre such as a r/w switch unless he needs feedback to help explain the trace or there were further issues - it is normally obvious from the trace that was what happened and this situation would be recorded as "Normal Operation".

Hope this shows that things are more sensible and leave you more free to make decisions than you thought?

Yes it will now. I was initially bewildered until I realised we were interpreting the ATC rules incorrectly. It is now understood you do not fly the original GA (at LHR at least). As for other stations like FRA, it will be in local regs, but I was at AMS this week and I don't recall seeing on the Jepps anything about this- it may be buried in the airport rules somewhere, but one doesn't normally burrow deeply into them.

We do have a hard rule of no turning from the 500' gate, and I would be unhappy doing it below 1000'. The days of airliners with people doing late base turns onto finals are gone, however good a pilot you may think you are. There are others who will be outside their ability zone, so I think it is a correct regulation.

<<We do have a hard rule of no turning from the 500' gate>>
Please see PM

Please note that the 1000' gate is a vertical profile gate and it does not require you to be aligned with the c/l. Similarly for the "hard" 500' gate.

NW1, This is hardly a general rule is it? This is up to the operator to specify or are you and Rainboe flying for the same operator? I know of several operators, including the one I fly for, that prohibits the pilots to perform any major turns below 1000 feet. In essence it requires the flighpath to be lined up with the landing runway in my case.

/LnS

LnS - You're absolutely right. I don't know why, but I was sure Rainboe & I worked for the same operator, I just looked at his public profile and realise this cannot be right, so I take back all my comments, apologise, & humbly withdraw.....

PS: RB, please ignore my PM :O

- how do you fly circuits?:confused:

Ah, not exactly.
Smaller charter/scheduled operators still do these maneuvers, and why not...as their pilots are trained to proficiency, not the lowest common denominator.:rolleyes::}

<<Smaller charter/scheduled operators still do these maneuvers, and why not...>>
As does my operator. And I agree - why not? Can't understand the fuss - in the right circumstances and with reasonable airmanship these visual manoevres offer no more risk than any other approach. If an operator bans turning below 1000' and they if they fly to JFK how the heck do they fly the VOR approach 13L?

Rainboe:
You said. I posted:

The visual GA is a sensible thing, but it is not a feature over here- as far as I am aware, the official instrument GA is the only option available, and that is what most of us would expect to fly.

The Unstabilised Approach Criteria are pretty rigid, and if not lined up and stabilised by 500', we must GA. No ifs, buts.

Reviewing this thread- I got a lot of stick and abuse from people who thought I was wrong. I asked for one posting to be removed as it implied I was not safe to be near. And blow me down, who would we like to be flying a sidestep GA on one runway when someone is taking off on the other?

Didn't have the stamina to read through the whole thread, but:

The best analogy for this situation is circle to land manuever. I would go for the original approach g/a procedure.

Another thought: what is the new runway doesn't have an instrument procedure?

Unless specifically instructed, you would be wrong! Why bother to post if you can't be bothered to read the thread of 4 pages?

Understood by whom, exactly?

PANS-OPS says:

7.4 MISSED APPROACH PROCEDURE WHILE CIRCLING
7.4.1 If visual reference is lost while circling to land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed. The pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and overhead the aerodrome. At this point, the pilot will establish the aircraft climbing on the missed approach track.

This might not be "appropriate" for LHR ATC, but it's absolutely by the book to fly the GA for the instrument approach for which you have been cleared, which is presumably why LHR MATS Part 2 requires an explicit instruction to the contrary.

What frightens me is:

- Pilots have different ecpectations at different airports.
- ATCOS have different expectations to pilots.....

Well Bookworm, there is a blurry line between Sidestep manoeuvres and Circling approaches, but it is important to try and differentiate one from the other so that one may execute the correct GA. For a sidestep,:
Note the ATC manual does not refer to this as a 'Circling Approach'. It is a 'Visual Change of Landing Runway' A Circling Approach is when one must manoeuvre around an airfield horizontally, maintaining altitude, into the approach for a differently aligned runway. For this, the only effective GA is to turn for the original runway and execute the original GA, but this is a different animal to the Sidestep manoeuvre as the GA for that should be actioned on the new runway's procedures, as confirmed above.

Rainboe

Having taken a time out of this thread ;) and without looking to lock horns again....

You have succesfully redirected this thread to a different subject, one of stabilised approaches.

ICAO does not make different rules for those operators that have on board monitoring.

ICAO states (and its in this thread) that you conduct the go around of the original runway if you are circling or sidestepping or whatever manouvre you wish to call it. You aim for the safe area of the overhead initially and then conduct the GA, you might not get to do it as no doubt ATC will intervene but whether you agree or not that is the procedure to follow (even at Hallowed LHR - as confirmed by a current LHR controller!!!)

Again I'll quote the original question:

In our minds lets replace the 27 numbers for others just to be sure we are NOT specifically talking about LHR.

Please answer the question! Somebody makes the valid point that the other runway might not even have a IFR GA !! Think lowest common denominator.

One more point, if you are including me in the people that gave you grief then once again I apologise however and I quote you:

Which sounded very pompous and arrogant (hence my later tone), I wont hold my breath for an apology nor do I particularly want one. I will take solace in the fact that even though the correct facts have been posted here you still wish to ignore them /your peers / LHR ATC and seem desperate to keep pursueing your incorrect theory by tring to make the facts fit.

You are obviously a very experienced guy (as detailed by you on another thread) so that commands a certain amount of respect, however the only thing to be confirmed by you in this thread is the age old adage that we are all still learning - perhaps even you.

Waitaminutehere!

What is the official definition of a "swing over" or "swing across" in CAA/JAA jargon? There is no such official terminology in the US, and I have never heard it before.

In the US there are 4 possibilities for changing runways:

1) Change to the ILS for the new runway, if you are outside the FAF for the original one. In that case, missed approach would be for the new runway approach.

2) Circle to land on the new runway. In that case, the missed approach would be for the original approach.

3) Sidestep to the parallel runway. This is ONLY valid when the sidestep is published for the approach to the original runway. Missed approach is still for the original approach.

4) Visual approach to the parallel runway. Since you are now visual, missed approach will be per ATC (Tower) instructions.

NO!!!

A sidestep is NOT a "visual change"! It is a specific clearance for a specific INSTRUMENT approach with specific INSTRUMENT minimums!

FAA AIM 5-4-19: