Originally Posted by
Adanac
Our company has told us several times recently that if we are cleared for a visual approach, to set and plan pattern altitude (1500 AFL) for the missed approach.
However, many guys I fly with still make up their own altitude. At O'hare, it's 4,000. At a smaller airport, say Peoria for example, guys might set pattern altitude OR I've flown with guys that are cleared for the visual but still set and plan the altitude for the ILS missed approach.
It makes the most sense to me to plan the published altitude if you're on an instrument approach and to set pattern altitude if you are cleared for a visual and just plan that until the controller tells you something else to do.
Does anyone know the official correct way to do this? I've tried to look it up in multiple sources and really can't find a clear answer.
I feel like every one I fly with comes up with something different and if we were to really go missed and aren't able to contact tower right away (maybe because of radio congestion), everyone should be on the same page as to what we are doing, altitude wise.
Thanks for the input.
Many years ago, a Comair crew was violated at KLGA for this scenario. The ATIS stated the approach in use was the LDA-A landing Runway 22. The crew in question briefed the LDA-A and loaded it into the FMS. Approach asked them if they had the runway in sight and they confirmed Runway 22 was in sight. They were cleared for the visual approach for 22.
For some reason, they had to execute a go-around and started to fly the published MAP. They were asked where they were going and replied flying the published MAP.
According to what was reported, they were expected to fly a closed traffic pattern to 1,500 feet AGL since they were cleared for a visual approach. I agree that tower facilities will usually give heading and altitude (ATL and CVG come to mind) to an airplane executing a go-around and many times it's not to an altitude that is 1,500 feet AGL. Sometimes, you ask tower for altitude and heading and they can't answer immediately (LGA and PHF come to mind)...what do you do then?
Now, think about CLT and a visual approach to 18-36C. Do you make a LT across 36L interfering with arrivals or a RT interfering with arriving and departing traffic on 36R? I think ORD has a good idea in this scenario. On ATIS, they publish the ILS for the center runway and visuals of the L-/R-side runways. That tells me ATC expects arrivals to the center runways to fly a published MAP and arrivals to the outside runways to execute a visual go-around.
When a visual approach has been briefed, sometimes a pilot will put in the FAF crossing altitude for the go-around altitude. IMO, there is some logic behind that.
On charted visual approaches, I haven't seen a published MAP. My experience there is limited to DCA (River Visual 19 and MV Visual 1), LGA (River Visual 13 and Expressway Visual 31) and PHL (River Visuals 9L/R and Liberty Visual 27L.