Adlerdriver

I don't agree with this logic. IMO, you should be looking at the actual error that was made, not one that wasn't.

Unless misapplication of approach mins is a trend, busting him for going MAP 200 feet early on an ILS because that error is in the same category as using ILS mins on a LOC makes no sense. As I said in my first post, of course using ILS mins on a LOC would be a bust, but that's not what he did. That's like busting someone for getting slow momentarily during cruise because he might get slow on base to final and stall.

No checkride is going to be perfect. Were errors caught and corrected without compromising safety? Was every other approach flown without significant loss of SA and basically error free? Then I would look at the whole effort as opposed to one error that only resulted in a MAP.

I guess I'm a Santa Claus.

Adlerdriver

What? Since when do we have to worry about going missed early?

Terrain/Obstacles - the MAP ground track and altitude are protected by design. If I went MAP 10 seconds after passing the FAF, climbed to the MAP altitude and flew the ground track, how could I possibly be threatened by terrain or obstacles? You're saying those threats are somehow reduced if I fly the approach longer and get to a lower altitude? Please explain.

Traffic - sort of same question. While ATC might not expect a MAP, either early or at mins, it does happen. You either fly the published or ATC gives you other instructions.

Not once have I hesitated to go MAP whenever I felt it was appropriate because I was worried about traffic.....or terrain.....or obstacles.

EMAW

Exactly. As long as you initiate the missed at or before the missed approach, and perform it correctly, I.e. Climb along the approach track to the MAP and then execute the published or commanded missed you'd be OK. Shows good judgement, as long as no mins were busted. Show good judgment and threat and error management you'd be fine. . Make it a habit and that's a different story.

2StgTurbine

I don't understand how this is even a debate. The OP was on the glideslope and decided to go missed early. The OP did not go below the minimums and remained on the MAP so terrain was not an issue. How is that different than a go around on a visual approach? What if you are a few knots too fast and your approach is no longer stable? Are you saying you can't go around? This kind of thinking leads people to making mistakes because they view go arounds and missed approaches as something negative.

The only error I see is reading the approach plate incorrectly. You realized your mistake and instead of re-briefing it at 400 feet AGL, you decided to go around and try again. If I was the examiner, I would view that as great airmanship. How many accidents could have been avoided if pilots decided to gain altitude instead of trying to fix an error low to the ground? Pilots cannot be expected to be perfect (even on a checkride), but we are expected to recognize an error and address it before it leads to an incident, FAR violation, or a busted aircraft limitation.

threeighteen

Say the missed approach calls for a climbing turn at the missed approach point (typically where the GS intercepts mins on the ILS), but you're not actually at minimums and you're much further out, you're not going to be on the ground track and therefore you will not be protected.

Adlerdriver

Maybe you're still working on your instrument rating? I think some time back in the books might be in order (preferably before your next instrument approach ).

An early missed approach doesn't alleviate your responsibility to fly the ground track of the instrument approach procedure. If the procedure calls for a climbing turn at the MAP, then you fly the lateral guidance to the MAP and execute the procedure from there. Maybe by the time you get there, it's no longer a climbing turn because you're already at the missed approach altitude.

threeighteen

Agreed 100%, but we're not on the same page.

I'm assuming that the pilot believes he is at the missed approach point because he has reached [the wrong] minimums, and therefore executes the missed approach turn before he actually reaches the missed approach point. At that point, he has left the ground track of the instrument approach procedure without knowing that he has done so.

Adlerdriver

Okay - on your page now. You have a valid point. My apologies.

I thought your original caution about early missed was directed at his "no warm fuzzy" missed. Then when you said "much further out" from the MAP I definitely wasn't on your page.

One would hope that the other clues that might be available (marker beacon, DME, etc) might get some SA back and avoid the early turn. I'm no terps expert, but it seems like the roughly half mile represented by his 200' early missed on a ~3 degree g/s would still be in the "slop" built into the protected airspace (though certainly not guaranteed, as you pointed out).

rickair7777

It is a tough call, and I wouldn't fault any examiner whichever way he/she went. For me it would probably depend on the rest of the ride and the overall vibe from the applicant.

DiveAndDrive

Thanks again everyone for the insightful replies. Threeighteen, now your argument makes a WHOLE lot more sense to me. I was on the same page as Adlerdriver. Where if you go missed early, you climb to the missed approach altitude but follow the lateral guidance of the approach until the MAP. Which in my situation doesn't apply, since I executed the missed approach from what I thought was the MAP. I never even thought of your situation, as the missed approach I was following was climbing straight ahead followed by a climbing right turn over water.

Like I said before. It's definitely a learning experience, and something I WILL make sure to watch out for in the future. I'm also going to bring it up to my DPE AFTER the ride. "Oh. Hey. By the way......."