Question of aborted landing after instrument approach

[[email protected]]

A couple of weekends ago I was at Half Moon Bay Airport (KHAF) a
non-towered field near San Francisco, CA. It was a beautiful, sunny,
Sunday afternoon, so that traffic pattern was full. I made calls in
each leg of the pattern, except base and final, because I could not get
a word in edgewise. Mostly, this was due to some people greeting each
other, talking about the airport restaurant and generally getting
chatty on frequency. As I was on short final, about 20 feet above the
runway, some idiot announces his intention to take off, and rolls onto
the runway and guns it. I had to abort my landing. Honestly, I don't
think he ever saw me, even after I when I sidestepped the runway and
we were both in the air together, parallel.

I was incredibly annoyed, but because I saw the whole thing happen and
was able to react, I was didn't think of my life having been in danger.
I mostly just cursed the lousy airmanship all around the airport that
day. [ NOTE: just because you don't hear a radio call does not mean you
are free to not look for aircraft in the pattern. Hell, calls get
stepped on, and radios aren't even required at an airport like HAF. ]

Later, though, I started thinking about how this might have played out
if I had been on an instrument approach. Say I was on an ILS (HAF has
none, but pretend) at minimums, and I had to abort the landing after
the MAP. The weather is way below circling, so I need to get back up
again. It's too late to fly the missed. What can I safely do? The only
thing that comes to mind is to fly a departure procedure like an ODP.

Is that the correct procedure? I'm embarassed that this wasn't covered
in my instrument training, or that I have forgotten it. It certainly
seems that if you are going to fly an approach into an airport that has
an DP, it behooves you to have it out in case you have to abort after
having descended below/past the DH/MAP.

What is the correct way to deal with this scenario?

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Later, though, I started thinking about how this might have played out
> if I had been on an instrument approach. Say I was on an ILS (HAF has
> none, but pretend) at minimums, and I had to abort the landing after
> the MAP. The weather is way below circling, so I need to get back up
> again. It's too late to fly the missed. What can I safely do? The only
> thing that comes to mind is to fly a departure procedure like an ODP.

If conditions were that low, no VFR aircraft would be taking off, and no
IFR aircraft would be released until you landed or canceled IFR.

--
Peter

[Ray]

wrote:

> Is that the correct procedure? I'm embarassed that this wasn't covered
> in my instrument training, or that I have forgotten it. It certainly
> seems that if you are going to fly an approach into an airport that has
> an DP, it behooves you to have it out in case you have to abort after
> having descended below/past the DH/MAP.
>
> What is the correct way to deal with this scenario?
>

You fly the published or assigned missed approach. As long as you had
sight of the runway and legally descended below DH/past the MAP the
missed approach still applies. This is not as unusual a case as you
might think, besides a runway incursion you can also lose sight of the
runway/approach lights after having seen them and descended below the DH
or you can lose sight of the runway while flying a circling approach.

- Ray

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

ATC will not issue a clearance to the departing traffic until you have
landed and cancelled your flight. So the scenario you propose is
unlikely to happen when weather is below VFR. However, you could
encounter an animal or some other obstruction, in which case you will
have to abort the landing. I think it is ok to fly the missed approach
procedure because you will not be that far from the MAP. On a precision
approach, you cannot CONTINUE the approach after DA, but that doesn't
mean you have to be on a climb immediately after DA. You are allowed to
descend below DA while configuring the airplane for the missed
approach. So, I would suspect that the protected area for the missed
approach must also include a climb from the runway elevation. Someone
more familiar with TERPs might be able to verify this assumption.



wrote:
> A couple of weekends ago I was at Half Moon Bay Airport (KHAF) a
> non-towered field near San Francisco, CA. It was a beautiful, sunny,
> Sunday afternoon, so that traffic pattern was full. I made calls in
> each leg of the pattern, except base and final, because I could not get
> a word in edgewise. Mostly, this was due to some people greeting each
> other, talking about the airport restaurant and generally getting
> chatty on frequency. As I was on short final, about 20 feet above the
> runway, some idiot announces his intention to take off, and rolls onto
> the runway and guns it. I had to abort my landing. Honestly, I don't
> think he ever saw me, even after I when I sidestepped the runway and
> we were both in the air together, parallel.
>
> I was incredibly annoyed, but because I saw the whole thing happen and
> was able to react, I was didn't think of my life having been in danger.
> I mostly just cursed the lousy airmanship all around the airport that
> day. [ NOTE: just because you don't hear a radio call does not mean you
> are free to not look for aircraft in the pattern. Hell, calls get
> stepped on, and radios aren't even required at an airport like HAF. ]
>
> Later, though, I started thinking about how this might have played out
> if I had been on an instrument approach. Say I was on an ILS (HAF has
> none, but pretend) at minimums, and I had to abort the landing after
> the MAP. The weather is way below circling, so I need to get back up
> again. It's too late to fly the missed. What can I safely do? The only
> thing that comes to mind is to fly a departure procedure like an ODP.
>
> Is that the correct procedure? I'm embarassed that this wasn't covered
> in my instrument training, or that I have forgotten it. It certainly
> seems that if you are going to fly an approach into an airport that has
> an DP, it behooves you to have it out in case you have to abort after
> having descended below/past the DH/MAP.
>
> What is the correct way to deal with this scenario?
>
> -- dave j
> -- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

[Ray]

Ray wrote:
>
> You fly the published or assigned missed approach. As long as you had
> sight of the runway and legally descended below DH/past the MAP the
> missed approach still applies. This is not as unusual a case as you
> might think, besides a runway incursion you can also lose sight of the
> runway/approach lights after having seen them and descended below the DH
> or you can lose sight of the runway while flying a circling approach.
>
> - Ray

After looking at the AIM I found that I was wrong and the original
poster was correct - the AIM recommends flying the departure procedure:

AIM 5-4-21(g)
"Missed approach obstacle clearance is predicated on beginning the
missed approach procedure at the MAP from MDA or DA and then climbing
200 feet/NM or greater. Initiating a go-around after passing the
published MAP may result in total loss of obstacle clearance. To
compensate for the possibility of reduced obstacle clearance during a
go-around, a pilot should apply procedures used in takeoff planning.
Pilots should refer to airport obstacle and departure data prior to
initiating an instrument approach procedure."

Learn something new every day...

- Ray

[[email protected]]

Ah, that makes sense!

However, let's say it was a snowplow or a deer, or a mechanical problem
with the landing gear (that's far fetched since the gear goes down
sooner -- or at least it does when I'm flying ;) )

There still seems to be an issue.

-- dave j


Peter R. wrote:
> If conditions were that low, no VFR aircraft would be taking off, and no
> IFR aircraft would be released until you landed or canceled IFR.

[[email protected]]

Ray,

Thanks for finding the pertinent section of the AIM for us. I'm glad I
asked!

I don't have too many actual hours under my belt, but I've never
self-briefed a DP before an approach. Next time, I will -- at a minimum
to find out if there are any interesting objects I need to be aware of
in the departure path.

-- dave j

Ray wrote:
> After looking at the AIM I found that I was wrong and the original
> poster was correct - the AIM recommends flying the departure procedure:
>
> AIM 5-4-21(g)
> "Missed approach obstacle clearance is predicated on beginning the
> missed approach procedure at the MAP from MDA or DA and then climbing
> 200 feet/NM or greater. Initiating a go-around after passing the
> published MAP may result in total loss of obstacle clearance. To
> compensate for the possibility of reduced obstacle clearance during a
> go-around, a pilot should apply procedures used in takeoff planning.
> Pilots should refer to airport obstacle and departure data prior to
> initiating an instrument approach procedure."
>
> Learn something new every day...
>
> - Ray

[Doug[_1_]]

Bottom line. You do what is safest.

Some airports (Aspen is one), pilots use a "balked landing" procedure
for a missed below the MAP. At Aspen it is signifigantly different
than the missed due to terrain. (It is a climbing left hand turn and
the missed is a right hand turn). This requires the airline working out
the procedure.

As a private pilot, if I had to do a balked landing at Aspen, I
definitely would NOT make the right hand turn back to the MAP!! You
would run into a mountain. Things like this is why IMC approaches at
small mountain airports are bit dicey.

So it all depends. I agree a balked landing and a missed are different
procedures.

Also, I have landed on taxiways before, so that MIGHT be an option.
MIGHT...

[John R. Copeland]

"Doug" > wrote in message ps.com...
> Bottom line. You do what is safest.
>
> Some airports (Aspen is one), pilots use a "balked landing" procedure
> for a missed below the MAP. At Aspen it is signifigantly different
> than the missed due to terrain. (It is a climbing left hand turn and
> the missed is a right hand turn). This requires the airline working out
> the procedure.
>
> As a private pilot, if I had to do a balked landing at Aspen, I
> definitely would NOT make the right hand turn back to the MAP!! You
> would run into a mountain. Things like this is why IMC approaches at
> small mountain airports are bit dicey.
>
> So it all depends. I agree a balked landing and a missed are different
> procedures.
>
> Also, I have landed on taxiways before, so that MIGHT be an option.
> MIGHT...
>

Not at Aspen, though. :-)

[PilotWeb.org]

Fly the published missed approach procedure, that is what it is for.


Visit our website for more aviation data, to talk with an expert, view
jobs, post your pilot resume and profile, and read aviation news.


http://PilotWeb.org

[Hamish Reid]

In article m>,
wrote:

> Ah, that makes sense!
>
> However, let's say it was a snowplow or a deer, or a mechanical problem
> with the landing gear (that's far fetched since the gear goes down
> sooner -- or at least it does when I'm flying ;) )

A snowplow on the runway at HAF?! You'd have a lot more problems than
just flying the missed :-).

Hamish

[Jose[_1_]]

> Fly the published missed approach procedure, that is what it is for.
>
>
> Visit our website for more aviation data, to talk with an expert, view
> jobs, post your pilot resume and profile, and read aviation news.
>
>
> http://PilotWeb.org

Your posts here do not inspire confidence in pilotweb.org.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

That is a very good observation. I would be interested to know how many
airports there are where the difference between a missed and a
departure procedure are significantly different to warrant
consideration.


wrote:
> Ray,
>
> Thanks for finding the pertinent section of the AIM for us. I'm glad I
> asked!
>
> I don't have too many actual hours under my belt, but I've never
> self-briefed a DP before an approach. Next time, I will -- at a minimum
> to find out if there are any interesting objects I need to be aware of
> in the departure path.
>
> -- dave j
>
> Ray wrote:
> > After looking at the AIM I found that I was wrong and the original
> > poster was correct - the AIM recommends flying the departure procedure:
> >
> > AIM 5-4-21(g)
> > "Missed approach obstacle clearance is predicated on beginning the
> > missed approach procedure at the MAP from MDA or DA and then climbing
> > 200 feet/NM or greater. Initiating a go-around after passing the
> > published MAP may result in total loss of obstacle clearance. To
> > compensate for the possibility of reduced obstacle clearance during a
> > go-around, a pilot should apply procedures used in takeoff planning.
> > Pilots should refer to airport obstacle and departure data prior to
> > initiating an instrument approach procedure."
> >
> > Learn something new every day...
> >
> > - Ray

[Dave S]

wrote:
ow this might have played out
> if I had been on an instrument approach. Say I was on an ILS (HAF has
> none, but pretend) at minimums, and I had to abort the landing after
> the MAP. The weather is way below circling, so I need to get back up
> again. It's too late to fly the missed. What can I safely do?

On the garden variety Cat 1 ILS you are at 200 feet AGL and over the
approach lights when you reach DH (decision height). How would it be
"too late" to fly the missed approach? If you are genuinely concerned,
pitch for VX instead of VY for any percieved obstacle clearance, but VY
should suffice nicely.

Also think about the practical aspects.. You went around because of a
runway incursion by an aircraft that didn't look before entering the
runway... had this been during a socked in IFR day, with a 200 or 300
foot ceiling, the vfr guys wouldnt even be turning a wheel. If you were
on approach, you would own the airspace and the approach until
confirming you were on the ground with ATC or cancelling IFR. Likewise,
departures would be limited to folks who are operating under an IFR
departure clearance (via live radio or void time clearance).. You may
still have a runway incursion while on an IFR approach to minimums, but
its less likely to be another plane, and more likely to be an animal,
vehicle or an idiot who shouldnt be operating his plane where s/he is.

Dave

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> ow this might have played out
> > if I had been on an instrument approach. Say I was on an ILS (HAF has
> > none, but pretend) at minimums, and I had to abort the landing after
> > the MAP. The weather is way below circling, so I need to get back up
> > again. It's too late to fly the missed. What can I safely do?

Dave S wrote:
> On the garden variety Cat 1 ILS you are at 200 feet AGL and over the
> approach lights when you reach DH (decision height). How would it be
> "too late" to fly the missed approach? If you are genuinely concerned,
> pitch for VX instead of VY for any percieved obstacle clearance, but VY
> should suffice nicely.

I mis-wrote in my first post, though most readers got my drift. I said
I was at minimums when I should have said that the weather was at
minimums (implying, for example, that circling back would be out) I was
talking about a scenario where I would be well below DH or past a MAP
when the runway incursion occurs.

As you point out, every instrument pilot knows you can initiate a
missed approach from DH or at the MAP. After all, most of us learned
how to fly approaches by repeatedly practicing that very scenario. :)

> Also think about the practical aspects.. You went around because of a
> runway incursion by an aircraft that didn't look before entering the
> runway... had this been during a socked in IFR day, with a 200 or 300
> foot ceiling, the vfr guys wouldnt even be turning a wheel.

I personally find this explanation somewhat unsatisfying. I (try to)
know the rules and operate by them but don't like my options to be
limited by what the "VFR guys" are //supposed// to be doing. I have
been flying long enough to see plenty of people depart VFR from
uncontrolled airports when they clearly should not have. Also, there
are the scenarios of the snowplow, animal, FOD, runway lights suddenly
going out, etc.

I'm satisfied with the answer found by the poster named Ray who found
the AIM section (5-4-21-g) that describes the procedure for going
around afer DH/MAP. They state quite clearly that the pilot should be
thinking "takeoff", not "missed."

I'm really surprised now that so many people state matter-of-factly
that just flying the missed is appropriate. It may work at 99% of
airports 99% of the time, but it is clearly //not// the right answer.
This is why I originally posted the question -- I didn't know the
answer, but I knew it could not be "just fly the missed." After all, if
you are below DH or past a MAP you are really not even on a charted
segment of the approach.

Another way of looking at is it is that you could actually have just
put the mains on the ground and see a snowplow turn onto the runway,
with your best option to put in power and get back in the air. Missed
approach situation? I think not.

-- dave j

[Chad Speer]

*****
AIM 5-4-21(g)
"Missed approach obstacle clearance is predicated on beginning the
missed approach procedure at the MAP from MDA or DA and then climbing
200 feet/NM or greater. Initiating a go-around after passing the
published MAP may result in total loss of obstacle clearance. To
compensate for the possibility of reduced obstacle clearance during a
go-around, a pilot should apply procedures used in takeoff planning.
Pilots should refer to airport obstacle and departure data prior to
initiating an instrument approach procedure."
*****

I don't think this advises against the use of a missed approach
procedure, it just explains that there is reduced obstacle clearance if
you are beyond the MAP or below the MDA/DH and the pilot should
consider that and become familiar with the obstacles.

Since the missed approach procedure is predicated on a climb gradient
of 200'/NM or greater, consider how long it would take an average
aircraft to intercept that flightpath if the missed was initiated a
little beyond or below the published procedure. I think most could
intercept it by the departure end of the runway, thus ensuring obstacle
clearance throughout. The suggestion of climbing at Vx initially
sounds good if you're concerned.


Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, IA
ATCS, Kansas City ARTCC

[Travis Marlatte]

"PilotWeb.org" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Fly the published missed approach procedure, that is what it is for.
>
>
> Visit our website for more aviation data, to talk with an expert, view
> jobs, post your pilot resume and profile, and read aviation news.
>
>
> http://PilotWeb.org
>

And now back to our regularly scheduled program...

I agree with Jose. Your flippant response in spite of the fact that others
had already posted quotes from the AIM to the contrary will not lead me to
your website.

-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

[Ray]

Chad Speer wrote:
> *****
> AIM 5-4-21(g)
> "Missed approach obstacle clearance is predicated on beginning the
> missed approach procedure at the MAP from MDA or DA and then climbing
> 200 feet/NM or greater. Initiating a go-around after passing the
> published MAP may result in total loss of obstacle clearance. To
> compensate for the possibility of reduced obstacle clearance during a
> go-around, a pilot should apply procedures used in takeoff planning.
> Pilots should refer to airport obstacle and departure data prior to
> initiating an instrument approach procedure."
> *****
>
> I don't think this advises against the use of a missed approach
> procedure, it just explains that there is reduced obstacle clearance if
> you are beyond the MAP or below the MDA/DH and the pilot should
> consider that and become familiar with the obstacles.
>

Yeah, I agree - it all depends on the situation. The same section of
the AIM (5-4-21(c)) indicates that at the minimum circling altitude, the
missed approach can be initiated from anywhere within the circling
approach area - so obviously if you are able to make it back up to the
minimum circling altitude within the circling approach area it will be
safe to execute the missed. But as has been pointed out there are
definitely airports from which it is not possible to execute the missed
approach from below the DH.

During my instrument training we would often do a touch and go before
flying the missed approach in order to log cross country time.

- Ray

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> Your posts here do not inspire confidence in pilotweb.org.
>

Hehe, just what I was thinking. What kind of experts are that if they
give the wrong answer.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Sam Spade]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
.. So, I would suspect that the protected area for the missed
> approach must also include a climb from the runway elevation. Someone
> more familiar with TERPs might be able to verify this assumption.
>
>
No protection at all.

[Sam Spade]

Ray wrote:

> Ray wrote:

>
>
> After looking at the AIM I found that I was wrong and the original
> poster was correct - the AIM recommends flying the departure procedure:

You are reading that into it. The FAA cannot suggest that you operate
contrary to an ATC clearance. Your ATC clearance in this hypothetical
includes the missed approach procedure, not the ODP.

The language is FAA "CYA" to alert you that they don't protect below
MDA/DA or inside the MAP.

Take a look South Lake Tahoe, KTVL, for a high MDA and a very early MAP.
As you descend beyond the MAP you are going into an obstacle coffin
corner. And, there is no ODP for the approach runway.
>
> AIM 5-4-21(g)
> "Missed approach obstacle clearance is predicated on beginning the
> missed approach procedure at the MAP from MDA or DA and then climbing
> 200 feet/NM or greater. Initiating a go-around after passing the
> published MAP may result in total loss of obstacle clearance. To
> compensate for the possibility of reduced obstacle clearance during a
> go-around, a pilot should apply procedures used in takeoff planning.
> Pilots should refer to airport obstacle and departure data prior to
> initiating an instrument approach procedure."
>
> Learn something new every day...
>
> - Ray

[Sam Spade]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> That is a very good observation. I would be interested to know how many
> airports there are where the difference between a missed and a
> departure procedure are significantly different to warrant
> consideration.
>
You would have to justify that use of the ODP was prudent because it
would be an exercise of emergency authority.

[Sam Spade]

Chad Speer wrote:

> *****
> AIM 5-4-21(g)
> "Missed approach obstacle clearance is predicated on beginning the
> missed approach procedure at the MAP from MDA or DA and then climbing
> 200 feet/NM or greater. Initiating a go-around after passing the
> published MAP may result in total loss of obstacle clearance. To
> compensate for the possibility of reduced obstacle clearance during a
> go-around, a pilot should apply procedures used in takeoff planning.
> Pilots should refer to airport obstacle and departure data prior to
> initiating an instrument approach procedure."
> *****
>
> I don't think this advises against the use of a missed approach
> procedure, it just explains that there is reduced obstacle clearance if
> you are beyond the MAP or below the MDA/DH and the pilot should
> consider that and become familiar with the obstacles.

You pass go and collect $200.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:

>> Fly the published missed approach procedure, that is what it is for.
>>
>>
>> Visit our website for more aviation data, to talk with an expert, view
>> jobs, post your pilot resume and profile, and read aviation news.
>>
>>
>> http://PilotWeb.org
>
>
> Your posts here do not inspire confidence in pilotweb.org.
>
> Jose

His respone is 100% correct.

[Sam Spade]

Travis Marlatte wrote:

> "PilotWeb.org" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>Fly the published missed approach procedure, that is what it is for.
>>
>>
>>Visit our website for more aviation data, to talk with an expert, view
>>jobs, post your pilot resume and profile, and read aviation news.
>>
>>
>>http://PilotWeb.org
>>
>
>
> And now back to our regularly scheduled program...
>
> I agree with Jose. Your flippant response in spite of the fact that others
> had already posted quotes from the AIM to the contrary will not lead me to
> your website.

Is this a popularity contest? The gentleman is correct, there is no
option provided to fly the ODP.

[Sam Spade]

Dave S wrote:

> wrote:
> ow this might have played out
>
>> if I had been on an instrument approach. Say I was on an ILS (HAF has
>> none, but pretend) at minimums, and I had to abort the landing after
>> the MAP. The weather is way below circling, so I need to get back up
>> again. It's too late to fly the missed. What can I safely do?

Unlike NPAs, especially those with high minimums, a *standard* CAT I ILS
has missed approach protection almost to the runway. Different criteria.

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

>
wrote:
>>ow this might have played out
>>
>>>if I had been on an instrument approach. Say I was on an ILS (HAF has
>>>none, but pretend) at minimums, and I had to abort the landing after
>>>the MAP. The weather is way below circling, so I need to get back up
>>>again. It's too late to fly the missed. What can I safely do?
>
>
> Dave S wrote:
>
>>On the garden variety Cat 1 ILS you are at 200 feet AGL and over the
>>approach lights when you reach DH (decision height). How would it be
>>"too late" to fly the missed approach? If you are genuinely concerned,
>>pitch for VX instead of VY for any percieved obstacle clearance, but VY
>>should suffice nicely.
>
>
> I mis-wrote in my first post, though most readers got my drift. I said
> I was at minimums when I should have said that the weather was at
> minimums (implying, for example, that circling back would be out) I was
> talking about a scenario where I would be well below DH or past a MAP
> when the runway incursion occurs.
>
> As you point out, every instrument pilot knows you can initiate a
> missed approach from DH or at the MAP. After all, most of us learned
> how to fly approaches by repeatedly practicing that very scenario. :)
>
>
>>Also think about the practical aspects.. You went around because of a
>>runway incursion by an aircraft that didn't look before entering the
>>runway... had this been during a socked in IFR day, with a 200 or 300
>>foot ceiling, the vfr guys wouldnt even be turning a wheel.
>
>
> I personally find this explanation somewhat unsatisfying. I (try to)
> know the rules and operate by them but don't like my options to be
> limited by what the "VFR guys" are //supposed// to be doing. I have
> been flying long enough to see plenty of people depart VFR from
> uncontrolled airports when they clearly should not have. Also, there
> are the scenarios of the snowplow, animal, FOD, runway lights suddenly
> going out, etc.
>
> I'm satisfied with the answer found by the poster named Ray who found
> the AIM section (5-4-21-g) that describes the procedure for going
> around afer DH/MAP. They state quite clearly that the pilot should be
> thinking "takeoff", not "missed."

That is not the message they are trying to convey. They are trying to
tell you that, where the airport/obstacle environment is that complex,
you had better well have a plan to avoid obstacle while getting back to
the published missed approach procedure.

[Sam Spade]

Sam Spade wrote:


>
> Take a look South Lake Tahoe, KTVL, for a high MDA and a very early MAP.
> As you descend beyond the MAP you are going into an obstacle coffin
> corner. And, there is no ODP for the approach runway.
>
>
I looked at KTVL and it now does have an ODP for that runway, although
most airplanes could not meet the required climb performance. It had no
ODP to the south for many years.

[[email protected]]

I think I agree. One will, of course, fly the missed approach, but one
may not want to //just// fly the missed. You have to think about any
special considerations necessary to get you back into a position from
which the missed approach can be executed safely. That doesn't mean
flying a DP by the letter, but in my mind, it most definitely means
knowing what is on the appropriate DP that might be relevant.

I view the rules in a certain hierarchy. First comes the rule of
avoiding hitting granite. Then come the FARs, then comes the AIM, and
eventually, way back in the end comes consideration of what I heard on
USENET. :)

-- dave j


Sam Spade wrote:

> That is not the message they are trying to convey. They are trying to
> tell you that, where the airport/obstacle environment is that complex,
> you had better well have a plan to avoid obstacle while getting back to
> the published missed approach procedure.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Is this a popularity contest? The gentleman is correct, there is no option provided to fly the ODP.

The AIM disagrees with this gentleman, and points out the possibility of
coming into unexpected contact with Cumulo Granite. Rules are all
subject to higher rules, and the highest rules are the rules of physics.
Those rules WILL be obeyed.

And as for being a popularity contest, yes it is. The aforementioned
gentleman is posting responses solely to generate traffic to his web
site (and likely for the purpose of indirectly generating income through
increased popularity). He's doing so by posting flip, sometimes
dangerously incomplete, and sometimes incorrect responses as a carrier
for his commercial message.

I'll take Mx over this any day.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Why is ODP an emergency procedure?


Sam Spade wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> > That is a very good observation. I would be interested to know how many
> > airports there are where the difference between a missed and a
> > departure procedure are significantly different to warrant
> > consideration.
> >
> You would have to justify that use of the ODP was prudent because it
> would be an exercise of emergency authority.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Why is ODP an emergency procedure?

It isn't. However, a go-around started in IMC far enough past the MAP
at an airport where the missed approach procedure does not provide
obstacle clearance if it's started past the MAP could certainly qualify
as an emergency for purposes of choosing a course of action.

The ODP would be a reasonable course of action in that circumstance, at
least until a point at which the missed approach could be joined.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Sam Spade > wrote:

> His respone is 100% correct.

not quite.

Just as starting a missed approach procedure too early, flying
the missed too late can put you into unprotected airspace.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[jbskies]

Dave S wrote:
> wrote:
> On the garden variety Cat 1 ILS you are at 200 feet AGL and over the
> approach lights when you reach DH (decision height). How would it be
> "too late" to fly the missed approach? If you are genuinely concerned,
> pitch for VX instead of VY for any percieved obstacle clearance, but VY
> should suffice nicely.
>

For many Cat1 aircrafts (especially B747/B744), a miss executed by the
auto-land system is commonly for the aircraft to actually tough down
the runway before it spoof up and flying the miss.

I think a pilot should fly the miss for the precision approaches after
abort landing. Abort landings happen not un-common. You can check
the famous A321 cross wind abort landing video at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2367849993821094040&q=crosswind+landing&hl=en

For the NPA, it is a tough call. It depends.

[jbskies]

jbskies wrote:
> For many Cat1 aircrafts (especially B747/B744), a miss executed by the
> auto-land system is commonly for the aircraft to actually tough down..

Sorry, my mistake. I really mean Cat3 auto landing.

[Jim Macklin]

On a missed approach begun early, prior to reaching the MAP,
climb to the missed approach altitude but do not turn until
reaching the MAP or that point indicated on the chart. If a
turn is indicated, perform that turn as charted, but not
prior to the expected position past the MAP.

If a climbing turn is the missed approach procedure, an
early miss requires a straight ahead climb to the MAP and
then the turn.


"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article >, Sam Spade
> wrote:
|
| > His respone is 100% correct.
|
| not quite.
|
| Just as starting a missed approach procedure too early,
flying
| the missed too late can put you into unprotected airspace.
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

[Hilton]

Peter R. wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>> Later, though, I started thinking about how this might have played out
>> if I had been on an instrument approach. Say I was on an ILS (HAF has
>> none, but pretend) at minimums, and I had to abort the landing after
>> the MAP. The weather is way below circling, so I need to get back up
>> again. It's too late to fly the missed. What can I safely do? The only
>> thing that comes to mind is to fly a departure procedure like an ODP.
>
> If conditions were that low, no VFR aircraft would be taking off, and no
> IFR aircraft would be released until you landed or canceled IFR.

You need to read more NTSB accident reports.

Hilton

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> On a missed approach begun early, prior to reaching the MAP,
> climb to the missed approach altitude but do not turn until
> reaching the MAP or that point indicated on the chart. If a
> turn is indicated, perform that turn as charted, but not
> prior to the expected position past the MAP.



From a well known instrument instructor and writer:


I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS specified.

Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
if you miss "early" inside the FAF.

I've no objection if you DO it to feel good, but I don't believe it
is a REQUIREMENT, built into the system.


Best...
John

[Jim Macklin]

The instrument approach provides terrain clearance along and
to a limited area either side of the final and missed
approach path charted. A climb along the approach path is
safe, but if you begin a turn prior to the charted location,
you run the risk of hitting an obstruction.
Consider a fictional IAP with a missed approach that calls
for a right turn and going direct to a fix. If it is an
ILS, the miss will start at 200 feet or lower from over the
runway. But if you miss on the three mile final and start
the turn (and climb) early, you would be about 700 at the
start, but could also be abeam a TV tower.

Perhaps most missed approaches can be flown differently, but
flown to the design, on the track that was flight tested, it
will work on any approach.



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > On a missed approach begun early, prior to reaching the
MAP,
| > climb to the missed approach altitude but do not turn
until
| > reaching the MAP or that point indicated on the chart.
If a
| > turn is indicated, perform that turn as charted, but not
| > prior to the expected position past the MAP.
|
|
|
| From a well known instrument instructor and writer:
|
|
| I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions
WHEREVER you
| start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP,
UNLESS specified.
|
| Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an
approach
| anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you
in trouble
| if you miss "early" inside the FAF.
|
| I've no objection if you DO it to feel good, but I don't
believe it
| is a REQUIREMENT, built into the system.
|
|
| Best...
| John

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> From a well known instrument instructor and writer:
>
>
> I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
> start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS specified.
>
> Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
> anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
> if you miss "early" inside the FAF.

Well, I don't know of any that actually would have a problem, however, I do
know for a fact that (at least in the 2001 timeframe) the TERPS does NOT
provide for any terrain protection if a missed approach procedure is started
early.

So that well known instrument instructor and writer might want to read up
on the TERPS.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Andrew Sarangan]

I quickly studied a few ILS charts for airports for which I know there
are tall antennas nearby. I can't find any examples where a turn before
MAP can cause a problem. The turn always seem to be away from the
antennas, and when there are antennas in the direction of the turn, the
procedure calls for a straight-ahead climb before turning to avoid
those antennas. I am not disputing the TERPS criteria, but the best way
to illustrate these lurking dangers is through real examples instead of
hypothetical ones.





Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
> > From a well known instrument instructor and writer:
> >
> >
> > I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
> > start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS specified.
> >
> > Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
> > anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
> > if you miss "early" inside the FAF.
>
> Well, I don't know of any that actually would have a problem, however, I do
> know for a fact that (at least in the 2001 timeframe) the TERPS does NOT
> provide for any terrain protection if a missed approach procedure is started
> early.
>
> So that well known instrument instructor and writer might want to read up
> on the TERPS.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> I quickly studied a few ILS charts for airports for which I know there
> are tall antennas nearby. I can't find any examples where a turn before
> MAP can cause a problem. The turn always seem to be away from the
> antennas, and when there are antennas in the direction of the turn, the
> procedure calls for a straight-ahead climb before turning to avoid
> those antennas. I am not disputing the TERPS criteria, but the best way
> to illustrate these lurking dangers is through real examples instead of
> hypothetical ones.

Just because a danger doesn't exist right now does not mean it can't
occur in the future.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Sam Spade]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Why is ODP an emergency procedure?

Because it is not in accordance with your air traffic clearance. See
AIM 5-5-5.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:

>> Why is ODP an emergency procedure?
>
>
> It isn't. However, a go-around started in IMC far enough past the MAP
> at an airport where the missed approach procedure does not provide
> obstacle clearance if it's started past the MAP could certainly qualify
> as an emergency for purposes of choosing a course of action.

Read AIM 5.5.5
>
> The ODP would be a reasonable course of action in that circumstance, at
> least until a point at which the missed approach could be joined.
>
> Jose

That would be your argument if any enforcement action resulted in the
event of a loss of separation.

[Sam Spade]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>His respone is 100% correct.
>
>
> not quite.
>
> Just as starting a missed approach procedure too early, flying
> the missed too late can put you into unprotected airspace.
>

No doubt about it. Nonetheless, his answer is still correct. The moral
of the story is that you better know what you are doing and have
adequate climb performance to overcome the balked landing problem when
you depart MDA on a high HAT/HAA instrument approach procedure.

One of the best assurances against getting into this bind is to have
landing assured when leaving MDA; i.e., a clear view of the runway.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> On a missed approach begun early, prior to reaching the MAP, climb to
>> the missed approach altitude but do not turn until reaching the MAP or
>> that point indicated on the chart. If a turn is indicated, perform
>> that turn as charted, but not prior to the expected position past the
>> MAP.
>
>
>
>
> From a well known instrument instructor and writer:
>
>
> I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
> start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS specified.
>
> Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
> anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
> if you miss "early" inside the FAF.
>
> I've no objection if you DO it to feel good, but I don't believe it
> is a REQUIREMENT, built into the system.
>
>
> Best...
> John

John obviously doesn't know TERPs criteria.

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> The instrument approach provides terrain clearance along and
> to a limited area either side of the final and missed
> approach path charted. A climb along the approach path is
> safe, but if you begin a turn prior to the charted location,
> you run the risk of hitting an obstruction.
> Consider a fictional IAP with a missed approach that calls
> for a right turn and going direct to a fix. If it is an
> ILS, the miss will start at 200 feet or lower from over the
> runway. But if you miss on the three mile final and start
> the turn (and climb) early, you would be about 700 at the
> start, but could also be abeam a TV tower.
>
> Perhaps most missed approaches can be flown differently, but
> flown to the design, on the track that was flight tested, it
> will work on any approach.

The only time an early turn will assure obstacle clearance is where the
missed approach track returns to the final approach fix or facility,
such as the LOM or where a VOR station is the FAF.

[Sam Spade]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>> From a well known instrument instructor and writer:
>>
>>
>>I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
>>start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS specified.
>>
>>Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
>>anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
>>if you miss "early" inside the FAF.
>
>
> Well, I don't know of any that actually would have a problem, however, I do
> know for a fact that (at least in the 2001 timeframe) the TERPS does NOT
> provide for any terrain protection if a missed approach procedure is started
> early.
>
> So that well known instrument instructor and writer might want to read up
> on the TERPS.
>

TERPs is the same today as it was in 2001 or, for that mater, 1971, when
it comes to turning missed approach criteria. The well known writer
doesn't know what he is talking about.

AIM 5-4-21 b:

"Reasonable buffers are provided for normal maneuvers. However, no
consideration is given to an abnormally early turn. Therefore, when an
early missed approach is executed, pilots should, unless otherwise
cleared by ATC, fly the IAP as specified on the approach plate to the
missed approach point at or above the MDA or DH before executing a
turning maneuver."

[Sam Spade]

jbskies wrote:

> Dave S wrote:
>
wrote:
>>On the garden variety Cat 1 ILS you are at 200 feet AGL and over the
>>approach lights when you reach DH (decision height). How would it be
>>"too late" to fly the missed approach? If you are genuinely concerned,
>>pitch for VX instead of VY for any percieved obstacle clearance, but VY
>>should suffice nicely.
>>
>
>
> For many Cat1 aircrafts (especially B747/B744), a miss executed by the
> auto-land system is commonly for the aircraft to actually tough down
> the runway before it spoof up and flying the miss.

You have that wrong. That is the situation for CAT III autoland. With
CAT III approaches the missed approach protection begins at the runway
surface.

[Jim Macklin]

To add top the answer, a procedure must be designed and
flown so that the same procedure will be safe anywhere.
Having to remember that an early turn is OK at airport
a,b,c... ..., but not at airport u, and v, and OK again at
x,y,z will be dangerous.



"Bob Noel" > wrote in
message
...
| In article
om>,
| "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
|
| > I quickly studied a few ILS charts for airports for
which I know there
| > are tall antennas nearby. I can't find any examples
where a turn before
| > MAP can cause a problem. The turn always seem to be
away from the
| > antennas, and when there are antennas in the direction
of the turn, the
| > procedure calls for a straight-ahead climb before
turning to avoid
| > those antennas. I am not disputing the TERPS criteria,
but the best way
| > to illustrate these lurking dangers is through real
examples instead of
| > hypothetical ones.
|
| Just because a danger doesn't exist right now does not
mean it can't
| occur in the future.
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| Looking for a sig the
| lawyers will hate
|

[Jose[_1_]]

>> It isn't. However, a go-around started in IMC far enough past the MAP at an airport where the missed approach procedure does not provide obstacle clearance if it's started past the MAP could certainly qualify as an emergency for purposes of choosing a course of action.
>
>
> Read AIM 5.5.5

I did. Read AIM 5.5.5 (a)(4), which makes my point.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Just as starting a missed approach procedure too early, flying
>> the missed too late can put you into unprotected airspace.
> No doubt about it. Nonetheless, his answer is still correct.

I'm not going to argue what the word "correct" means when following the
procedure can put you into unprotected airspace. However, his answer is
still =dangerous=, flip, un-thought-out, and he hasn't returned here to
discuss it with us. His answer was merely a hook to promote his web site.

Spam, in other words.

I suspect that his web site is equally dangerous and un-thought-out,
though perhaps a revenue producer for him. I would not patronize it.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Sarangan]

I don't see any reference to ODP as an emergency procedure in AIM
5-5-5. It simply says fly the missed approach if you can't make the
landing. It also tells you what to do if you start the missed approach
prior to reaching the MAP. It doesn't say anything about what to do if
you start the missed approach after the MAP, but AIM 5-4-21 does. It
clearly states that you are expected to fly the ODP.




Sam Spade wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > Why is ODP an emergency procedure?
>
> Because it is not in accordance with your air traffic clearance. See
> AIM 5-5-5.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>>> It isn't. However, a go-around started in IMC far enough past the
>>> MAP at an airport where the missed approach procedure does not
>>> provide obstacle clearance if it's started past the MAP could
>>> certainly qualify as an emergency for purposes of choosing a course
>>> of action.
>>
>>
>>
>> Read AIM 5.5.5
>
>
> I did. Read AIM 5.5.5 (a)(4), which makes my point.
>
> Jose

It does? Help me understand your logic.

5.5.5. (a) (4)

4. If executing a missed approach prior to reaching the MAP, fly the
lateral navigation path of the instrument procedure to the MAP. Climb to
the altitude specified in the missed approach procedure, except when a
maximum altitude is specified between the final approach fix (FAF) and
the MAP. In that case, comply with the maximum altitude restriction.
Note, this may require a continued descent on the final approach.

[Sam Spade]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I don't see any reference to ODP as an emergency procedure in AIM
> 5-5-5. It simply says fly the missed approach if you can't make the
> landing. It also tells you what to do if you start the missed approach
> prior to reaching the MAP. It doesn't say anything about what to do if
> you start the missed approach after the MAP, but AIM 5-4-21 does. It
> clearly states that you are expected to fly the ODP.
>

Read that as you choose.

You will be operating contrary to your clearance. Tell me how you do
that without declaring an emergency or obtaining an amended clearane>

The latter won't happen in a non-radar environment.

[Sam Spade]

Ray wrote:

> Chad Speer wrote:
>
>> *****
>> AIM 5-4-21(g)
>> "Missed approach obstacle clearance is predicated on beginning the
>> missed approach procedure at the MAP from MDA or DA and then climbing
>> 200 feet/NM or greater. Initiating a go-around after passing the
>> published MAP may result in total loss of obstacle clearance. To
>> compensate for the possibility of reduced obstacle clearance during a
>> go-around, a pilot should apply procedures used in takeoff planning.
>> Pilots should refer to airport obstacle and departure data prior to
>> initiating an instrument approach procedure."
>> *****
>>
>> I don't think this advises against the use of a missed approach
>> procedure, it just explains that there is reduced obstacle clearance if
>> you are beyond the MAP or below the MDA/DH and the pilot should
>> consider that and become familiar with the obstacles.
>>
>
> Yeah, I agree - it all depends on the situation. The same section of
> the AIM (5-4-21(c)) indicates that at the minimum circling altitude, the
> missed approach can be initiated from anywhere within the circling
> approach area - so obviously if you are able to make it back up to the
> minimum circling altitude within the circling approach area it will be
> safe to execute the missed. But as has been pointed out there are
> definitely airports from which it is not possible to execute the missed
> approach from below the DH.
>
> During my instrument training we would often do a touch and go before
> flying the missed approach in order to log cross country time.
>
> - Ray
>
>
>

The language about missing out of a circle-to-land is providing some
measure of guidance but does not imply that there is critera protecting
such a maneuver. If the missed approach point is at the runway or over
the airport (true most, but not all cases) the circle-to-land abort
should work. But, you are at MDA, not way below it in the case of high
HATs (or HAA in the case of circling).

The missed approach evaluation starts climbing at the MAP for
non-precision IAPs. There is no exception.

[Jose[_1_]]

> It does? Help me understand your logic.

One doesn't just "fly the missed approach" regardless of where on the
approach one is when they decide to miss. That was the flip answer
given by the spammer. One must modify one's procedure depending on
circumstances. 5.5.5.a4 gives one example - fly the lateral approach
path while (usually) climbing, but don't actually fly the missed
approach path until the MAP. This is an example of flying "what it
takes" to put you on the missed approach path.

It's not my point that an ODP is necessary if one misses =after= passing
the MAP (though that may in fact be needed in some cases). Rather, my
point is that the spammer's flip answer is dangerous due to lack of
thought, and makes me suspect that the spammer's web site is equally
dangerous. In aviation, lack of thought can kill.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sam Spade]

Jose wrote:
>> It does? Help me understand your logic.
>
>
> One doesn't just "fly the missed approach" regardless of where on the
> approach one is when they decide to miss. That was the flip answer
> given by the spammer. One must modify one's procedure depending on
> circumstances. 5.5.5.a4 gives one example - fly the lateral approach
> path while (usually) climbing, but don't actually fly the missed
> approach path until the MAP. This is an example of flying "what it
> takes" to put you on the missed approach path.

The thread started about missing the approach below MDA, which
presumably would be beyond the missed approach point. Without a margin
of performance that could become problematic. (As do many ODPs that
have climb gradient requirements much steeper than a missed approach
commenced at MDA and at the MAP.

The language you cite is for someone who decides to miss well prior to
the MAP. The guidance you cite in that instance is in no way
improvising, but is what the criteria protects for by default.

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>
>>> On a missed approach begun early, prior to reaching the MAP, climb to
>>> the missed approach altitude but do not turn until reaching the MAP
>>> or that point indicated on the chart. If a turn is indicated,
>>> perform that turn as charted, but not prior to the expected position
>>> past the MAP.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From a well known instrument instructor and writer:
>>
>>
>> I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
>> start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS specified.
>>
>> Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
>> anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
>> if you miss "early" inside the FAF.
>>
>> I've no objection if you DO it to feel good, but I don't believe it
>> is a REQUIREMENT, built into the system.
>>
>>
>> Best...
>> John
>
>
> John obviously doesn't know TERPs criteria.




So name an approach where you get in trouble by flying the published
missed prior to the MAP where it doesn't say on the plate specifically
not to do that.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On a missed approach begun early, prior to reaching the MAP, climb
>>>> to the missed approach altitude but do not turn until reaching the
>>>> MAP or that point indicated on the chart. If a turn is indicated,
>>>> perform that turn as charted, but not prior to the expected position
>>>> past the MAP.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From a well known instrument instructor and writer:
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
>>> start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS
>>> specified.
>>>
>>> Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
>>> anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
>>> if you miss "early" inside the FAF.
>>>
>>> I've no objection if you DO it to feel good, but I don't believe it
>>> is a REQUIREMENT, built into the system.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best...
>>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> John obviously doesn't know TERPs criteria.
>
>
>
>
>
> So name an approach where you get in trouble by flying the published
> missed prior to the MAP where it doesn't say on the plate specifically
> not to do that.
>
>
The problem is what he says, "There is to need to fly to the MAP,
unless specified."

There is no problem beginning the missed approach early. There is a
huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb, of course) on an
early missed approach.

[Sam Spade]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sam Spade wrote:
>>
>>> Newps wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On a missed approach begun early, prior to reaching the MAP, climb
>>>>> to the missed approach altitude but do not turn until reaching the
>>>>> MAP or that point indicated on the chart. If a turn is indicated,
>>>>> perform that turn as charted, but not prior to the expected
>>>>> position past the MAP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From a well known instrument instructor and writer:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
>>>> start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS
>>>> specified.
>>>>
>>>> Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
>>>> anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
>>>> if you miss "early" inside the FAF.
>>>>
>>>> I've no objection if you DO it to feel good, but I don't believe it
>>>> is a REQUIREMENT, built into the system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best...
>>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John obviously doesn't know TERPs criteria.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So name an approach where you get in trouble by flying the published
>> missed prior to the MAP where it doesn't say on the plate specifically
>> not to do that.
>>
>>
> The problem is what he says, "There is to need to fly to the MAP,
> unless specified."
>
Correctuin, I left out the critical word "no."

[Newps]

Sam Spade wrote:

>>
>> So name an approach where you get in trouble by flying the published
>> missed prior to the MAP where it doesn't say on the plate specifically
>> not to do that.
>>
>>
> The problem is what he says, "There is to need to fly to the MAP,
> unless specified."
>
> There is no problem beginning the missed approach early. There is a
> huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb, of course) on an
> early missed approach.




I'll take that as an I can't.

[Chris]

"Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
...
> In article m>,
> wrote:
>
>> Ah, that makes sense!
>>
>> However, let's say it was a snowplow or a deer, or a mechanical problem
>> with the landing gear (that's far fetched since the gear goes down
>> sooner -- or at least it does when I'm flying ;) )
>
> A snowplow on the runway at HAF?! You'd have a lot more problems than
> just flying the missed :-).

By then hell would have frozen over

[[email protected]]

Okay, snowplow is a little far-fetched. Maybe one of those old
abandoned cop cars somehow rolls onto the runway.

-- dgj

Chris wrote:
> "Hamish Reid" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article m>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, that makes sense!
> >>
> >> However, let's say it was a snowplow or a deer, or a mechanical problem
> >> with the landing gear (that's far fetched since the gear goes down
> >> sooner -- or at least it does when I'm flying ;) )
> >
> > A snowplow on the runway at HAF?! You'd have a lot more problems than
> > just flying the missed :-).
>
> By then hell would have frozen over

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Newps > writes:

> > [...] There is no problem beginning the missed approach early.
> > There is a huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb,
> > of course) on an early missed approach.
>
> I'll take that as an I can't.

Well, the burden of proof isn't exactly on him, to search all the
approaches just to justify the plainly written regulatory text.

But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
hill directly south of the airport.

- FChE

[Newps]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

> Newps > writes:
>
>
>>>[...] There is no problem beginning the missed approach early.
>>>There is a huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb,
>>>of course) on an early missed approach.
>>
>>I'll take that as an I can't.
>
>
> Well, the burden of proof isn't exactly on him, to search all the
> approaches just to justify the plainly written regulatory text.
>
> But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
> approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
> hill directly south of the airport.
>

I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10 degrees
off your inbound course.

[Sam Spade]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
>> Newps > writes:
>>
>>
>>>> [...] There is no problem beginning the missed approach early.
>>>> There is a huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb,
>>>> of course) on an early missed approach.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll take that as an I can't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the burden of proof isn't exactly on him, to search all the
>> approaches just to justify the plainly written regulatory text.
>>
>> But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
>> approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
>> hill directly south of the airport.
>>
>
> I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10 degrees
> off your inbound course.

Try an early turn to JESIE on the KEGE LDA DME Runway 25.

[Stan Prevost]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10 degrees
>> off your inbound course.
>
> Try an early turn to JESIE on the KEGE LDA DME Runway 25.


A turn before the VOR would not be following the missed approach procedure,
no matter where the procedure is started. Climbing direct to the VOR, per
the missed approach procedure, from any point on the procedure track prior
to the MAP, would provide adequate clearance.

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10 degrees
>>>off your inbound course.
>>
>>Try an early turn to JESIE on the KEGE LDA DME Runway 25.
>
>
>
> A turn before the VOR would not be following the missed approach procedure,
> no matter where the procedure is started. Climbing direct to the VOR, per
> the missed approach procedure, from any point on the procedure track prior
> to the MAP, would provide adequate clearance.
>
I agree. But, that is not what everyone thinks to seem.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Newps > writes:

> > But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
> > approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
> > hill directly south of the airport.
>
> I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10
> degrees off your inbound course.

That's ten degrees in *heading*, off of an inbound course that had
navigational guidance. Add some north wind, a late climb, sloppy
heading control, and some bad luck, and *bang*. Plus it's not just
obstructions. In airport-dense areas, I would imagine one might
trespass on others' airspace by such shenanigans.

Come to think of it, what is the earliest point along the approach
that you would consider it legitimate to turn toward the MAP? If
in your mind, that's the FAF, why?

- FChE

[Sam Spade]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

> Newps > writes:
>
>
>>>But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
>>>approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
>>>hill directly south of the airport.
>>
>>I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10
>>degrees off your inbound course.
>
>
> That's ten degrees in *heading*, off of an inbound course that had
> navigational guidance. Add some north wind, a late climb, sloppy
> heading control, and some bad luck, and *bang*. Plus it's not just
> obstructions. In airport-dense areas, I would imagine one might
> trespass on others' airspace by such shenanigans.
>
> Come to think of it, what is the earliest point along the approach
> that you would consider it legitimate to turn toward the MAP? If
> in your mind, that's the FAF, why?
>
> - FChE
I don't think that is what you meant to say. When you're at the FAF you
are tracking to the MAP.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Sam Spade > writes:

> > [...] what is the earliest point along the approach that you would
> > consider it legitimate to turn toward the MAP? If in your mind,
> > that's the FAF, why?
>
> I don't think that is what you meant to say. When you're at the FAF
> you are tracking to the MAP.

You're right, I meant missed approach holding point (if any).

- FChE

[Chad Speer]

On Dec 6, 7:03 pm, Newps > wrote:

*****
So name an approach where you get in trouble by flying the published
missed prior to the MAP where it doesn't say on the plate specifically
not to do that.
*****

Let's assume for a minute that nobody can find such an approach.

>From just the two excerpts I've included below and those already
mentioned, it is clear that the intent of the rules is for the pilot to
proceed to the MAP prior to executing the missed approach. To argue
otherwise is vain.

Sure, most (if not all) approach procedures may have been designed to
be idiot-proof.

Why would anyone be so eager to be the idiot?


Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, IA
ATCS, Kansas City ARTCC


==============================


>From the P/C G:

MISSED APPROACH-

a. <snip> A pilot executing a missed approach prior to the Missed
Approach Point (MAP) must continue along the final approach to the MAP.



>From the 7110.65:

4-8-9. MISSED APPROACH

2. In the event of a missed approach involving a turn, unless otherwise
cleared, the pilot will proceed to the missed approach point before
starting that turn.