Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Both really interesting missed approaches involved the tower going NORDO after having no idea how to un-f the situation.

KEWR - Fed, Program Manager on the JS. Tower, tower, held us high for a helicopter passing below. When clear I dive for the 1,000 box to be "stable" and bring in the power at 600 feet or so. Good airmanship, but kinda pushing the gates. About 70 feet off the ground get a GO AROUND GO AROUND from the tower (first thought, what did I goon up?) Shove up the power, arrest the descent and start to climb & clean up as a business jet rolls out across the crossing runway .... (oh, so it wasn't my approach after all...) .... so we ask tower for missed instructions coming off this visual. Tower goes nordo.... we fly the (whatever it is) departure procedure figuring that would keep us clear of KJFK traffic flows with the direction everyone was landing. Tower finally responded as we coasted out. After we taxied in the Fed asked us to get the tower's phone number for him and told us to have a nice day.

The other was a KAL 777 that went missed off of a BFI approach and flew right into parallel visual arrivals for KSEA. Kinda looked like the Blue Angels doing one of those "starburst" formations, but with two 777's a couple of 787's and a 737. Everyone climbed and broke away in almost perfect symmetry.

Originally Posted by Schwanker

Nope. Tracked the 147 heading as directed by the published missed approach. Your technique would have left us scrambling and set us up for a violation or potential traffic conflict.

Originally Posted by Trip7

You have my technique misunderstood. My technique is to brief relevant go around expectations. If there is a hold down altitude on the published missed that would be briefed and set as missed approach altitude. Published missed followed until receiving ATC instructions. Published hold and entry into the hold would not be discussed as the likelihood of that happened in a controlled environment is nil. So the focus would be runway change plan, go around procedures and fuel state. I've never seen an ASAP where preventative measure is briefings published miss hold better

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Trip7

You have my technique misunderstood. My technique is to brief relevant go around expectations. If there is a hold down altitude on the published missed that would be briefed and set as missed approach altitude. Published missed followed until receiving ATC instructions. Published hold and entry into the hold would not be discussed as the likelihood of that happened in a controlled environment is nil. So the focus would be runway change plan, go around procedures and fuel state. I've never seen an ASAP where preventative measure is briefings published miss hold better

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by LumberJack

Yes I agree that published hold entry is a bit too far.



I don't brief fuel state though. We both look at that the entire flight, so unless it's lower than normal, I don't see the point. Do you mention it in case the airport shuts down on a blue sky day? I think having an alternate plan is helpful for isolated airports with limited options, but what's the point going into most domestic airports? Honsest question, not trying to sound snarky.

Originally Posted by Schwanker

I must have misunderstood. I thought when you said, “Tower assigned heading and altitudes plus how much fuel do we have is all that needs to be briefed.” you suggested not reviewing relevant info in the missed approach box. No biggie.

Originally Posted by Trip7

I always like to be aware of how many missed approaches I can do based on the fuel state. That drives the missed approach plan, especially if there is no alternate on the flight plan. If a missed approach brings me back to close to min landing fuel then I add we'll request vectors for a tight pattern back in. It's my technique to stay ahead of the airplane when an unexpected event happens (flap failure, clear air windshear[320 LAS event] etc).

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by LumberJack

Makes sense, thanks.

Speaking of missed approaches, what's the latest on the 35 RJs? This is down right strike worthy if they try to reinstate them.