Missed approach altitude
08-12-2015 | 09:27 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,302
Likes: 0
From: Seat 0B
From AOPA
"A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible." explains AIM 5-4-23(e).
"A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible." explains AIM 5-4-23(e).
08-13-2015 | 08:05 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
From: 320 FO
In order to be cleared for a visual approach, you need the airport -or- the proceeding aircraft in sight. Assume you lose sight of the proceeding aircraft and elect to go around. Climbing to 1500' AGL puts you in the clouds. Now what. You cannot execute a visual pattern.
Just throwing that out there for discussion.
Just throwing that out there for discussion.
08-13-2015 | 08:10 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Next time you have a fed on board ask him what he would bug on a visual. I don't think it would be an ILS missed altitude for an approach you are no longer flying when cleared for the vis. Heard of a fed who had an issue with a guy who put the published missed in. I wasnt there so I can't confirm. But the AIM is clear in my opinion.
08-13-2015 | 08:15 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
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.
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
