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.