Swing over with missed approach
 

Let's assume you are flying an ILS at airport with two parallel runways e.g. 27L. You are offered a swing over to 27R and you do so. For any reason a missed approach has to be conducted. Which procedure do you fly, for 27L or 27R ?

I'll go out on a limb here and say follow ATC instructions. :E

Without any contrary instructions from ATC, follow the missed approach of the runway you are landing on i.e. 27R.

A lot of missed approach procedures are designed to separate a/c using a parallel runway usually by turning away. So 27R would have a turn to the right and 27L a turn to the left.

It's not a situation that I have to handle as a controller at present....and I don't have the books to hand to check....but I have always thought it was the missed approach associated with the instrument approach that you followed (before any visual manoeuvring) that should be flown.

But, as ever, if you're not sure and there are no instructions forthcoming from ATC - ask.

I'd say that if you're flying the instrument approach to 27L and get offered a switch of 27R by the means of a visual manoevre then you're now flying a visual approach to 27R. So by definition if you execute a missed approach/ go around then i'd fly the published procedure for 27R.

In the USA, you would now be "visual". So you would carry out a visual go-around not the IFR go-around.

So for a swing, I am told it would be straight ahead to circuit height and ask ATC asap.

I think.

Fly the go-around for the runway you are landing on! For all you know, you may have been swung over to the other runway so a departure can take place on the runway you were approaching on. So if you do the original go-around, you would be turning over the departing aeroplane. It would be common sense to advise you were 'turning right on the go-around'.

I for one shall stick my neck out and say if you have been cleared for an instrument procedure on 27L and then lose the runway whilst trying to circle for 27R, then my 0.02p's worth is that you fly the missed approach procedure for the runway that you initially shot the approach on.

People above have mentioned parallel runways, thats a bit of a red herring.

Luckily circling is not something we do often. But consider 27ILS at Memphis circle for the 18's and perhaps a bit more nearer home 27ILS and circle R22 at Amsterjam, doing the 22 go around would cause chaos!

Now between the 0 degree difference in runway heading in the case of a parallel runway and the 90degree difference at Memphis is there a certain difference of alignment that we should change procedure?

When ATC clear you for the swing over ask them what they would like you to do in the event of a missed approach. Problem solved....

Assuming you can get a word in - which is why you might be going around in the first place.....

Is it now a circle to land? If so then the miss should be that for the instrument approach just conducted.

L337- we don't have such things as visual go-arounds in Europe- it's a US thing.

GSPOT- you're changing the question to suit your answer. The question was about 2 parallel runways as at LHR. You have no experience at airline ops at airports like LHR, so your answer is misleading.

I have had this situation at LHR several times over the years. Each time there has been the opportunity to switch over ILS to the new runway. So why would you fly a go-around on a runway you are no longer approaching? As I said, the likely reasons are: slow clearer ahead and other runway clear, opportunity to take off aeroplane on original runway and other runway clear, or other runway clear and you want to park near that side anyway. So if another aeroplane then gets cleared to go on your original runway, and then you decide to go around and turn across LHR and overfly your original runway that another aeroplane may be lifting off, then you are demented and need to be carted off. You have simply changed your approach to a different runway! Why on earth would you then fly a go around for a different runway? It's crazy! It is not a circling approach! Why try and make it one? This is the real world, not academic ATPL stuff, and an element of common sense is needed.

I do not believe ATC do this any more at LHR anyway. It is a procedure that is now frowned upon in airline ops I believe. It must make the flight recorder monitoring go crazy.

So Rainboe,

what about EDDF 25L swing to 25R or
LSZH approach to 14 swing to 16.....???

I repeat- we are not talking circling approaches! ATC have switched you to another runway. They will then expect you to follow procedures for that runway. If following the original runway's GA leads to a hazard (as at LHR) then you will cause considerable surprise in the tower following a procedure that is not expected by ATC. It is 10 years since I have habitually visited FRA and ZRH, I am not that familiar with them anymore.

Does the logic some of you are using mean that if at 3000' I am switched over to another runway, then I should fly the original GA? Extraordinary!

Concerning EDDF, ATC expects you to follow M/A for 25L even you have swung to 25R.....

LSZH, I have no idea:ugh:

Why? Isn't there a note to this effect on the landing plate- I seem to recall one? Does that make it a requirement everywhere or does that make it a special exceptional requirement for FRA 25L/R?

To my limited knowledge it's amongst whole germany. Got that from a german atco.

A good gotcha is accepting a swing acrooss to the parallel runway when visual and forgetting the missed approach for the original runway remains in the FMS. Seen this happen a few times at KJFK when originally cleared 13L then offered 13R which is quite a bit closer off the non precision approach. Aircraft gets high or unstable, goes round and the pilot re-engages the NAV mode and all hell brakes lose. Swingovers were a lot easier in early generation jets than the 340's and 777's where someone needs to put a head down to update an FMS when all eyes should be outside the cockpit. Personally I don't accept them anymore, unless briefed and then I fly the G/A if reqired in a basic mode or ask ATC to maintain runway heading.

I thought a circling approach was defined as a 30deg or more change from the FAT to the runway... So most of those we are discussing are technically "switches" rather than circling?

I think I would do the the G/A applicable to the runway I was trying to land on, unless otherwise advised by ATC or notes on the plate.

At Heathrow, if you are on the ILS 27R, and we switch you visually to 27L, we will expect you to carry out the 27R missed approach procedure (i.e. the one you briefed, and the one you set up for).

Thus, you can be sure we will give you positive missed approach instructions ASAP.

Rainbow - do you know me?, I have operated into LHR on many occasions and with all due respect my bizjet will spoil somebodys day just as much as your boeingbus will whichever one you pilot. God knows what airliner ops has to do with it

So please calm down - perhaps you would feel happier if I had attached "discuss" to the end of my post, my point was valid.

Love to hear about your EHAM approach 27ILS followed by a "Swingover" for R22 (ATC quote if we are being pedantic about quoting the original poster) if you go around of R22 mate people will get hurt.

PS nobody mentioned LHR until you did......:yuk:

CG


Dont worry he's done it many times over the years ;)

Is it called 'Swing Over' now? It has happened to me a few times in the USA, at LAX, e.g. 24L and 24R and there it is/was called 'Side Step'.

At LHR I was finals 27L in VMC and and asked if I could still make 27R, answer 'Yes', 'Roger, you are now cleared to land 27R' in that case I would, having visually established finals 27R, done the missed approach for 27R.

Is there anything written about it?? The thing is, which missed approach has been briefed?? Why would I be forced to fly "by memory" a missed approach for a runway i wasn't expecting to land on, and also i hadn't taken a look at the plate either??... What's even worse, maybe the plate for that runway I'm side steping to, is not in sight (i don't know you, but i keep the plate i'm "flying" on top (on the plates holder), and it's not a good idea to be switching them while hand flying at a few hundred feets agl). My common sense says, I'd fly the missed approach for the runway i was originally approaching to... Then again, IS THERE ANYTHING WRITTEN ABOUT IT??? (of course, there must be..) However, if in doubt, I'd request the atc to give me "instructions in case of a missed approach"

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, hence we should promptly take corrective action.

@GONZO

Thx, that's exactly what my german mate told me.

Gonzo- you can't fly the original GA as written. You are looking for a DME reading off the ILS to make your turn north or south as appropriate to make your turn away from the airport at LHR. If you have moved to the other runway, you are not going to get that DME reading at all, so it is impractical. If what you say is correct, then the whole thing is dangerous as if you fly the original GA, you will be turning right over the central area to cross over the other runway- a bit crazy considering that somebody may have been cleared for take-off on it. When I have done this procedure in the past at LHR, we have had time to retune the ILS and get the GA read out. So when you GA, where does that leave you.

It is largely a theoretical discussion anyway as BA issued a notice to refuse swingovers like this a few years back. The reason was we are to be stabilised at 1000' at the latest lined up with the runway. Therefore you have to be changed over much further back, which makes it a whole new approach, with time to appraise yourself of the procedures for the new runway.

I now know enough not to accept them at all, as ATC procedures appear to be so confused, unless it is quite understood what the GA procedure is to be. Because of the doubts about it being thought through enough at LHR at least, that is most certainly a place to decline them unless it is agreed what must be done. Discussing potential GAs below 1000' is daft. Don't do them then. Especially when company procedures ban them.

We'd never get as far as allowing you to fly it, though. Our books say that we should expect you to fly it, precisely so that we know what might happen, so that we go in and positively control things.

Is it not the case that you would get a 0DME 27L at some stage if you were overflying 27R, because DME south has been zeroed to read 0DME at both the TDZ of 27L and the TDZ of 09R. That arc would continue to intersect 27R at some point.

I switched a BA 319 last week, at 3 miles. He was wings level on final at about 400ft.

I am not aware of a zero reading being possible at both thresholds- it's beyond my training and understanding of this zero reading, which is faked anyway.
For flight recorder reasons, we have instructions- we should be stabilised in all respects at 1000'. We must be stabilised by 500'. Otherwise you will get phone calls when the flight recorder shops you- as you will if you don't detune the ILS (full scale deflection will get you a phone call). So it is no longer really a practically acceptable procedure- you have to detune the ILS, which you say you need for the GA. Hearing how busy and congested the tower frequency can be, it has become a recipe for an accident these days. That Airbus Captain will have had a phone call about doing that.

Missed approach relevant to the runway you are on, seems the only logical answer, UNLESS, they have passed alternative missed approach instructions (rwy heading to 3000', etc)
L337. I would also be careful of carrying out a visual manoeuver having gone 'visual' in the united states.
We were landing aircraft on something-Right in the US (possibly Boston)recently, when an (US)aircraft someway behind had to break off the approach (parallel in use). The pilot was visual. What ensued was a fairly urgent exchange over the radio. The controller wanted a standard missed approach. The pilot wanted to do 'a quick turn right, and give it another go'. After several increasingly emphasised calls from tower controller, he finally got the message.
There were at least 4 calls on the subject with no other calls in between. The missed apprach really keeps everyone separate and safe, and gives people time to decide what to do next.

Forget what you THINK is best
 

Gonzo

Your procedures are exactly what I got on my last refresher, one rule needs to be applied and written down to avoid Pilot Interpretation and therefore as many different GA's as pilots.

Rainboe I shall sincerely bow to your experience and admit that your actions on any given day AT HEATHROW would no doubt be safer and what you are saying is no doubt correct about the safety aspects but there needs to be a common denominator for all operators and airport.

Which brings me back to my original post, the parallel runway was a red herring......... circle, swingover, sidestep call it what you want -fly the original missed. ATC will know what you are planning to do and issue instructions before you get anywhere near the published procedure for the original runway

Hello, please listen to the air traffic controller here.
Your trying to make a joke here right? There is a very important person who takes care of this, he is supposed to have the big picture, he's called the Local Controller, in visual conditions you most likely will not get an option to side step, (or swing over :confused:) more than likely you will not ever make the IFR missed approach procedure, common sense prevails.

You are missing the point chaps. You physically cannot fly the original missed approach (at LHR at least). You must detune the original ILS to turn towards the other runway otherwise the flight recorder will throw up a deviation and an unstabilised approach. Therefore come a GA, you would have to retune the ILS to check DME readings for a GA, in the middle of a GA, and commence your turn very rapidly.

Besides which BA issued a notice to decline such swingovers about 4 or 5 years ago, for this very reason.

I'm afraid this is very academic now- it is no longer a simple procedure as it used to be before flight recorder monitoring. I shall certainly decline it unless it is understood the procedure to follow, but that is not easy when LHR tower is so congested sometimes you cannot break in to say anything. It's asking for an incident. Nowadays we are supposed to be stabilised with no turns by 1000'. It can no longer be done.

I'm afraid it is no longer thought through. If you are switched runways 12 miles out? Are people suggesting you fly the original runway GA? That's daft. So where is the 'dividing line' where ATC will expect you to fly the new GA or the old one? Where does it become a 'changed' approach and not a runway swingover? If I'm 15 miles out from AMS 27 and they switch me to 24, will they really expect me to fly a 27 GA? I bet it would cause considerable surprise! It's important because line pilots just do not have this information- and they are the ones that count, not some ATC rule book!.

I experienced the swing over procedure in EDDF on quiet a few occasions, but to avoid the confusion you can always refuse the swing over in the first place and if you have to do a G/A because of it ,there is no argument!
I'm all for keeping it simple, it's difficult enough to decide if it is tea or coffee on the turn around.

The other thing in EDDL is that they ask you to swing over fairly late, which at the time didn't conform with our SOP, stablised approch criteria.

good luck anyway

Pure Waffle Now - what has your onboard monitoring system got to do with following ATC procedure that is written in Black and White?

If you did get hauled over the coals because of said monitoring, surely if you demonstrated that you were flying in compliance with established ATC procedures they couldn't say much!

Many operators don't have on board monitoring !!! - Aircraft Type/Kind Of Operations is also irrelevant. Forget Heathrow/BA/on board monitoring/ The original question didn't mention any of these. Its a question of procedure .

You don't follow ATC established procedures if it puts you in contravention of your company's established operating procedures, so it is relevant, I'm afraid, not waffle! You operate the aeroplane in accord with your company flying manual and obey requirements. So the only answer is to decline all swingovers if you cannot stay within company procedure guidelines, and maybe accept a GA as a result. At least there will be no doubt as to what you then do! It looks like ATC must clean up their procedures here.

The orginal question went something very much like this:

And now you are saying:
So you iniitally offer an opinion, its proved incorrect and now you justify your error by saying that in effect it doesn't matter becasue you cant do them anyway. Why respond to the thread?

And as for :
and

And in all of Germany presumably

Priceless, I've said enough already you can be judged by your peers on these gems.

Suggest you find a tin hat.

I thought this was a discussion to find the answer to a question and how to conduct a procedure. You appear to see it as two sides with tin helmets on, winner to be declared. You have provided no answer to serious operational questions- I don't see it as an effective safe procedure, whatever allegedly ATC may expect. It is no longer a discussion, it's a point scoring row- where did the need for tin hats come in here? We might as well terminate- I can see it effectively going no further than point scoring.

I'm going to work now. Definitely no swingovers ever again! They're not safe. Not with passengers, and many pilots expecting to do something when ATC apparently expect something else. Something that may well not be possible (as at LHR).

Interesting debate, would really like to know the definative, offical answer.

Raniboe is sort of right about the SOP thing, life is so so regimented now, we seem to spend half our flying duty making decisions base on the FDM and SOP requirements as opposed to using actual common sense/airmanship..PAH!!

A sidestep can be, even relatively close in, a perfectly safe and 'commercial' procedure, but unfortunately it really depends on the operators rules as well as the crew's and ATC's preferences. Ours are stable 1000" IFR, 500" if visual.

Its probably been debated elsewhere but why is 1000" the common 'stabalised by' point, and why the need to be lined up? If everything else is on the money (config, speed,thrust, ROD, pitch etc) a little visual manouvering (limited bank angle perhaps) should be perfectly safe, or am I missing something here?

Well, it's not in MATS Pt 1 (according to the 36 results for "missed approach" that resulted!) Where else would it be in UK docs? Local Pt 2 procedures? Will trawl through PAN Ops when a spare moment arises.....