The appropriate missed approach: AIN

[Mooneymite]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/ainsight-appropriate-missed-approach?utm_hsid=28755669&utm_campaign=AIN Alerts&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=199564781&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--WIm0eFCn7zPUwpitGU-1jSiYflGFoKqXUNlRAVwXv_RyLP0yiBqfemFIs0GXv5RV0hne-etrPnzahhu0AYT3YDxu-Ug&utm_content=2&utm_source=hs_email

 

From AIN

 

The appropriate missed approach

 

A missed approach is a possibility during any flight. The appropriate pilot response depends on the geographic location of the aircraft when the missed approach procedure is initiated and may not necessarily be the published missed approach procedure. A well-flown missed approach requires the pilot to have competency in the many nuances of a missed approach procedure.

 

Outside of simulator training, an actual missed approach is rare. The reason to “go missed” often is a surprise and adds to the high workload of an unexpecting flight crew during an approach. Thus, pilots should plan thoroughly and brief the missed approach prior to reaching the top of descent. When executing a missed approach, pilots must manage the aircraft and flight path to safely ensure terrain and obstacle clearance.

As a reminder, according to the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), “a clearance for an instrument approach includes a clearance to fly the published missed approach procedure unless otherwise instructed by ATC.” Of importance, “the published missed approach procedure provides obstacle clearance only when the missed approach is conducted on the missed approach segment from or above the missed approach point (MAP) and assumes a climb rate of 200 feet/NM or higher, as published.” Furthermore, “if the aircraft initiates a missed approach at a point other than the MAP, from below minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision altitude/height (DA/DH), or on a circling approach, obstacle clearance is not necessarily provided by following the published missed approach procedure, nor is separation assured from other air traffic in the vicinity.”

According to the Instrument Flying Handbook, “many reasons exist for executing a missed approach.” Regulations (14 CFR 91.175 (e)) authorize pilots to execute an “appropriate missed approach.” For this discussion, three scenarios will be discussed, in each case, the aircraft has a different geographic location: (1) A missed approach at the MAP; (2) a missed approach prior to reaching the MAP; and (3) a missed approach after reaching the MAP or descending below the MDA or DA/DH.

 

For fun, we’ll then review the appropriate missed approach procedures from a circling and visual approach.

A missed approach at the MAP is the least complex and the one practiced most in the simulator. The primary reason for this missed approach is the required flight visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used does not exist or the required visual references for the runway cannot be seen upon arrival at the DA/DH or MAP. The response to this scenario is to comply with the published missed approach procedure. In this case, obstacle clearance is provided if the missed approach is initiated from or above the MAP.

A missed approach initiated prior to the MAP (unless otherwise directed by ATC) requires the pilot to continue to fly the lateral track of the instrument approach procedure to the MAP at or above the MDA or DA/DH before beginning the turn. When the missed approach is initiated, the pilot should begin the climb (go-around procedure), but not begin the turn until reaching the MAP.

A missed approach after the MAP and/or below the DA/DH or MDA involves additional risk. In this case, obstacle clearance is the responsibility of the pilot and may not necessarily be provided by following the published missed approach procedure. The appropriate missed approach is authorized during this scenario and allows the pilot to take whatever action necessary to ensure obstacle clearance. A good plan is to utilize the engine out (EO) procedure for that runway during a missed approach after the MAP below the published DA/DH or MDA. The EO procedure will provide obstacle clearance; however, these procedures can be complicated and should be reviewed in advance.

A missed approach from a circling approach may be the most challenging. According to the Instrument Flying Handbook, “if visual reference is lost while circling-to-land from an instrument approach, execute the appropriate missed approach procedure.” After initiating the missed approach, fly an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and then maneuver to intercept and fly the missed approach course. Again, in this case, the appropriate missed approach may not be the published missed approach procedure.

The last scenario—a “missed approach” from a visual approach—is a bit of a trick. Technically, a visual approach is not a standard instrument approach procedure and has no missed approach segment. A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually (and clear of clouds) to the airport of intended landing. If unable to complete a landing from a visual approach, the pilot is expected to execute a go-around and climb to pattern altitude and is required to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance.

Regardless of the missed approach (or go-around) flown, pilots should contact ATC as soon as possible. If flying something other than the published missed approach, pilots should include the heading and altitude being flown to maintain obstacle clearance on the initial contact.

For pilots, a missed approach is a rare event. The intent of this blog is to begin a discussion on the appropriate missed approach and the initial actions required during these different scenarios. For a deeper discussion, other documents such as the regulations (14 CFR 91), AIM, Instrument Flying Handbook, TERPS (Ch. 2), and ICAO Doc. 8168 (Vol. 1) should be reviewed.

Pilot, safety expert, consultant, and aviation journalist Kipp Lau writes about flight safety and airmanship for AIN. He can be reached at stuart.lau3@gmail.com

 

 

[Mooneymite]

 

[Ragsf15e]

4 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/ainsight-appropriate-missed-approach?utm_hsid=28755669&utm_campaign=AIN Alerts&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=199564781&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--WIm0eFCn7zPUwpitGU-1jSiYflGFoKqXUNlRAVwXv_RyLP0yiBqfemFIs0GXv5RV0hne-etrPnzahhu0AYT3YDxu-Ug&utm_content=2&utm_source=hs_email

 

From AIN

 

The appropriate missed approach

 

A missed approach is a possibility during any flight. The appropriate pilot response depends on the geographic location of the aircraft when the missed approach procedure is initiated and may not necessarily be the published missed approach procedure. A well-flown missed approach requires the pilot to have competency in the many nuances of a missed approach procedure.

 

Outside of simulator training, an actual missed approach is rare. The reason to “go missed” often is a surprise and adds to the high workload of an unexpecting flight crew during an approach. Thus, pilots should plan thoroughly and brief the missed approach prior to reaching the top of descent. When executing a missed approach, pilots must manage the aircraft and flight path to safely ensure terrain and obstacle clearance.

As a reminder, according to the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), “a clearance for an instrument approach includes a clearance to fly the published missed approach procedure unless otherwise instructed by ATC.” Of importance, “the published missed approach procedure provides obstacle clearance only when the missed approach is conducted on the missed approach segment from or above the missed approach point (MAP) and assumes a climb rate of 200 feet/NM or higher, as published.” Furthermore, “if the aircraft initiates a missed approach at a point other than the MAP, from below minimum descent altitude (MDA) or decision altitude/height (DA/DH), or on a circling approach, obstacle clearance is not necessarily provided by following the published missed approach procedure, nor is separation assured from other air traffic in the vicinity.”

According to the Instrument Flying Handbook, “many reasons exist for executing a missed approach.” Regulations (14 CFR 91.175 (e)) authorize pilots to execute an “appropriate missed approach.” For this discussion, three scenarios will be discussed, in each case, the aircraft has a different geographic location: (1) A missed approach at the MAP; (2) a missed approach prior to reaching the MAP; and (3) a missed approach after reaching the MAP or descending below the MDA or DA/DH.

 

For fun, we’ll then review the appropriate missed approach procedures from a circling and visual approach.

A missed approach at the MAP is the least complex and the one practiced most in the simulator. The primary reason for this missed approach is the required flight visibility prescribed in the instrument approach procedure being used does not exist or the required visual references for the runway cannot be seen upon arrival at the DA/DH or MAP. The response to this scenario is to comply with the published missed approach procedure. In this case, obstacle clearance is provided if the missed approach is initiated from or above the MAP.

A missed approach initiated prior to the MAP (unless otherwise directed by ATC) requires the pilot to continue to fly the lateral track of the instrument approach procedure to the MAP at or above the MDA or DA/DH before beginning the turn. When the missed approach is initiated, the pilot should begin the climb (go-around procedure), but not begin the turn until reaching the MAP.

A missed approach after the MAP and/or below the DA/DH or MDA involves additional risk. In this case, obstacle clearance is the responsibility of the pilot and may not necessarily be provided by following the published missed approach procedure. The appropriate missed approach is authorized during this scenario and allows the pilot to take whatever action necessary to ensure obstacle clearance. A good plan is to utilize the engine out (EO) procedure for that runway during a missed approach after the MAP below the published DA/DH or MDA. The EO procedure will provide obstacle clearance; however, these procedures can be complicated and should be reviewed in advance.

A missed approach from a circling approach may be the most challenging. According to the Instrument Flying Handbook, “if visual reference is lost while circling-to-land from an instrument approach, execute the appropriate missed approach procedure.” After initiating the missed approach, fly an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and then maneuver to intercept and fly the missed approach course. Again, in this case, the appropriate missed approach may not be the published missed approach procedure.

The last scenario—a “missed approach” from a visual approach—is a bit of a trick. Technically, a visual approach is not a standard instrument approach procedure and has no missed approach segment. A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually (and clear of clouds) to the airport of intended landing. If unable to complete a landing from a visual approach, the pilot is expected to execute a go-around and climb to pattern altitude and is required to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance.

Regardless of the missed approach (or go-around) flown, pilots should contact ATC as soon as possible. If flying something other than the published missed approach, pilots should include the heading and altitude being flown to maintain obstacle clearance on the initial contact.

For pilots, a missed approach is a rare event. The intent of this blog is to begin a discussion on the appropriate missed approach and the initial actions required during these different scenarios. For a deeper discussion, other documents such as the regulations (14 CFR 91), AIM, Instrument Flying Handbook, TERPS (Ch. 2), and ICAO Doc. 8168 (Vol. 1) should be reviewed.

Pilot, safety expert, consultant, and aviation journalist Kipp Lau writes about flight safety and airmanship for AIN. He can be reached at stuart.lau3@gmail.com

 

 

Alright, I’ll bite… why wouldn’t the published missed approach for the approach being flown be the correct one?  I can see if they gave you an alternate missed approach instruction (“climb out instructions”), but even on circling approaches, you’re supposed to turn toward the runway, intercept the missed approach course and fly the published missed for the approach you flew.  So it’s not the missed for the runway you intended landing on (one may not even exist for that runway), but I thought you would always fly the missed for the approach you had flown?  

[Ragsf15e]

Just to add some reference to my point, this from aim 5-4-21…

c. 

If visual reference is lost while circling

−

to

−

land 

from an instrument approach, the missed approach 
specified for that particular procedure must be 
followed (unless an alternate missed approach 
procedure is specified by ATC). To become 
established on the prescribed missed approach 
course, the pilot should make an initial climbing turn 
toward the landing runway and continue the turn until 
established on the missed approach course. Inasmuch 
as the circling maneuver may be accomplished in 
more than one direction, different patterns will be 
required to become established on the prescribed 
missed approach course, depending on the aircraft 

[jaylw314]

I've never heard of an EO procedure for an airport.  Otherwise, the article makes a simple topic excessively complicated by talking about the "appropriate" missed approach, as if there are different ones. 

[Mooneymite]

The circling approaches at TEB seemed to be fertile ground for very creative missed approaches.  Since the miss can occur at any point once the circle maneuver begins and the proper turn, or climb depends on where you are, the best news is when the tower just tells you what to do.  It rarely (never?) coincided with what was published.

The overhead jet traffic headed into EWR always added a certain "je ne sais quo" to the whole  evolution.  

[Ragsf15e]

22 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

The circling approaches at TEB seemed to be fertile ground for very creative missed approaches.  Since the miss can occur at any point once the circle maneuver begins and the proper turn, or climb depends on where you are, the best news is when the tower just tells you what to do.  It rarely (never?) coincided with what was published.

The overhead jet traffic headed into EWR always added a certain "je ne sais quo" to the whole  evolution.  

Yeah, if tower tells you what to do, that helps and I’d say that’s “alternate missed approach instructions”.  Otherwise, the aim seems clear, turn toward the landing runway, start a climb, intercept the missed approach course for the approach flown, execute published missed for the approach you flew (not for the runway you were planning to land on).

[jaylw314]

49 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

The circling approaches at TEB seemed to be fertile ground for very creative missed approaches.  Since the miss can occur at any point once the circle maneuver begins and the proper turn, or climb depends on where you are, the best news is when the tower just tells you what to do.  It rarely (never?) coincided with what was published.

The overhead jet traffic headed into EWR always added a certain "je ne sais quo" to the whole  evolution.  

Lacking any instructions from tower, the only choice to make after turning towards the airport is whether to turn left or right to join the published missed approach course.  I suppose I could see someone getting that wrong in the heat of the moment if they hadn't reviewed it during briefing.  It's hard to imagine anyone getting the initial turn towards the airport wrong, since you're required to be looking in that direction anyway...

[AIREMATT]

6 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I've never heard of an EO procedure for an airport.  Otherwise, the article makes a simple topic excessively complicated by talking about the "appropriate" missed approach, as if there are different ones. 

Engine out procedure for multi-engine aircraft due to lack of climb performance.

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, AIREMATT said:

Engine out procedure for multi-engine aircraft due to lack of climb performance.

Those are specific to the aircraft, though, right?  Are there specific EO procedures published for airports/runways?  If not, it would be disingenuous write "the EO procedure will provide obstacle clearance" 

[AIREMATT]

36 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Those are specific to the aircraft, though, right?  Are there specific EO procedures published for airports/runways?  If not, it would be disingenuous write "the EO procedure will provide obstacle clearance" 

They can be Company specific for Part 121/135 carriers or multiple approaches  (-Z, -Y, -X) of the same type (ILS 12-Z) with climb performance requirements to use the lower minimums or (ILS12-Y) using higher minimums and a different missed approach procedure.

[MikeOH]

6 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

...the aim seems clear, turn toward the landing runway, start a climb, intercept the missed approach course for the approach flown, execute published missed for the approach you flew (not for the runway you were planning to land on).

While that makes sense, and follows the AIM, I was taught that if you initiate the missed when past the MAP, you may NOT have obstruction clearance (especially if you have descended below the MDA/DA) even if you establish yourself on the missed.  Therefore, one should consider reviewing the ODP as part of approach planning; if you can get to the DER at >35 feet, and follow the ODP you won't hit nuthin'!

[Ragsf15e]

30 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

While that makes sense, and follows the AIM, I was taught that if you initiate the missed when past the MAP, you may NOT have obstruction clearance (especially if you have descended below the MDA/DA) even if you establish yourself on the missed.  Therefore, one should consider reviewing the ODP as part of approach planning; if you can get to the DER at >35 feet, and follow the ODP you won't hit nuthin'!

While the logic seems ok at first glance, I don’t think it’s a good idea to mix approach procedures with departure procedures to “roll your own” missed approach, not to mention that it doesn’t follow the AIM or ATC instructions.  Studying terrain is always good for SA, but do you really have the departure procedure ready to fly when you do an approach to mins?  Is that really your plan or is looking at it just for terrain awareness? 

[carusoam]

Inviting @Mcstealth to the IFR discussion…

-a-

[MikeOH]

14 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

While the logic seems ok at first glance, I don’t think it’s a good idea to mix approach procedures with departure procedures to “roll your own” missed approach, not to mention that it doesn’t follow the AIM or ATC instructions.  Studying terrain is always good for SA, but do you really have the departure procedure ready to fly when you do an approach to mins?  Is that really your plan or is looking at it just for terrain awareness? 

Perhaps, but it seems the issue hinges upon whether or not you are guaranteed terrain clearance if the missed approach is started AFTER the MAP.  Certainly, I would follow ATC instructions, if given; I thought we were considering a non-tower situation (i.e., you're on your own).  I'm not convinced the AIM recommendation properly considers all situations, that's all.

[Ragsf15e]

20 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Perhaps, but it seems the issue hinges upon whether or not you are guaranteed terrain clearance if the missed approach is started AFTER the MAP.  Certainly, I would follow ATC instructions, if given; I thought we were considering a non-tower situation (i.e., you're on your own).  I'm not convinced the AIM recommendation properly considers all situations, that's all.

I guess I’m thinking “ATC instructions” which cleared you for the published approach and published missed.  Not for something else.  Additionally, if you say you’d follow Atc alternate missed instructions which are typically given by approach ctl before you start the approach, do you think those have different terrain clearance requirements than a normal published missed?  Wouldn’t you still ignore them and fly a departure procedure if past the map (not trying to be a jerk, just playing devils advocate)?

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, Ragsf15e said:

I guess I’m thinking “ATC instructions” which cleared you for the published approach and published missed.  Not for something else.  Additionally, if you say you’d follow Atc alternate missed instructions which are typically given by approach ctl before you start the approach, do you think those have different terrain clearance requirements than a normal published missed?  Wouldn’t you still ignore them and fly a departure procedure if past the map (not trying to be a jerk, just playing devils advocate)?

I get what you are saying.  And, yes, my intention when I start the approach is to follow the published missed, or the alternate provided by ATC.  My contention that the ODP is safer is predicated only if the premise that the published/ATC missed does NOT provide terrain clearance when executed AFTER the MAP.  That is the premise that needs to be confirmed or refuted.

And, I agree, we are just playing devil's advocate on this.  If I ever find myself in this actual situation I've screwed up my ADM pretty bad

[Ragsf15e]

I guess I’m gonna have to (partially) eat my words.  I found a section in the aim that might give you some leeway for what you’re describing.  It won’t copy right but here’s a screenshot.  I say leeway, but I’ve taught a lot of instrument flying and I really can’t see someone executing a “roll your own” missed approach well.  Most people can’t adequately execute a standard missed if they aren’t expecting it, never mind creating a new one.

[jaylw314]

19 hours ago, AIREMATT said:

They can be Company specific for Part 121/135 carriers or multiple approaches  (-Z, -Y, -X) of the same type (ILS 12-Z) with climb performance requirements to use the lower minimums or (ILS12-Y) using higher minimums and a different missed approach procedure.

I couldn't make any sense of that answer, could you try again?  I was asking if EO's were specific to aircraft or published instrument approaches (or, as I suspect, neither)?

[Hank]

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I couldn't make any sense of that answer, could you try again?  I was asking if EO's were specific to aircraft or published instrument approaches (or, as I suspect, neither)?

It appears that each airline / charter company can write their own aircraft-specific Engine Out missed approach procedure for a particular airport. In my Mooney, there are no EO Missed Approaches . . . .

[kortopates]

I guess I’m gonna have to (partially) eat my words.  I found a section in the aim that might give you some leeway for what you’re describing.  It won’t copy right but here’s a screenshot.  I say leeway, but I’ve taught a lot of instrument flying and I really can’t see someone executing a “roll your own” missed approach well.  Most people can’t adequately execute a standard missed if they aren’t expecting it, never mind creating a new one.

it’s exactly as Mike referred to above, in any non-towered circling approach and you have descend below MDA after you visually met the requirements from 91.175 you could easily entirely loose the 300’ of terrain clearance you had at MDA even after turning back to your intended runway, or to the center of the airport, and still come up significantly short while climbing and thus in no position to start the missed since you don’t the required obstacle clearance.
The only safe option may be to fly a runway heading/track as you continue to climb to MDA. but by the time you get to MDA you could be to far away from the MAWP to execute the published miss with additional obstacles.
Once you get to far away, the only safe recourse may be to follow the ODP for the runway your tracking. But if you didn’t consider these issues during your pre-flight planning your really out of luck and could become a statistic if you’re trying to figure this all out on the fly.

Out west where i teach this is often a discussion with the DPE on this very topic.

To consider extreme cases of this issue to really bring it home, consider circling approaches the end with a visual segment over a mile long past the MAWP to the runway such as the KSDM VOR-A and especially the very special cases of a few approaches with “Fly Visual xxx degrees for yyy nm WHEN yyy nm significantly greater than the required minimum visibility! ( formerly KJAC GPS X 1 was a great example of this but it’s now an
RNP AR, but DCA LDA 19 still remains. These are approaches which really require you to consider worst case scenarios going missed down low and and what your plan should be going missed in different places and altitudes.
The AIM really reinforces this as well.
But go back to the more common KSDM VOR circling approach and consider losing sight of the airport after leaving the MAWP over a mile away after descending below MDA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AIREMATT]

6 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I couldn't make any sense of that answer, could you try again?  I was asking if EO's were specific to aircraft or published instrument approaches (or, as I suspect, neither)?

The appropriate missed approach is authorized during this scenario and allows the pilot to take whatever action necessary to ensure obstacle clearance. A good plan is to utilize the engine out (EO) procedure for that runway during a missed approach after the MAP below the published DA/DH or MDA. The EO procedure will provide obstacle clearance; however, these procedures can be complicated and should be reviewed in advance.

Engine out procedures are developed for and specific to the air carrier or operator and a specific runway, not airport.

On 12/30/2021 at 8:09 PM, jaylw314 said:

If not, it would be disingenuous write "the EO procedure will provide obstacle clearance"

They are required by reg’s to ensure terrain clearance in the event of an engine failure on takeoff or a missed approach/rejected landing with an engine failure due to the reduced climb performance. The air carrier regulations require them. Performance engineering must determine the max landing weight for expected conditions to ensure climb gradients for the engine out procedure are met and also for all engines operating normally. The engine out Proc. allows a higher landing weight than the published missed might with an engine failure due to terrain as it uses a different route or procedure.

The closest thing to EO Proc. in GA planes is an ODP if published.

Hope that makes more sense.

Dan

[jaylw314]

16 hours ago, AIREMATT said:

The appropriate missed approach is authorized during this scenario and allows the pilot to take whatever action necessary to ensure obstacle clearance. A good plan is to utilize the engine out (EO) procedure for that runway during a missed approach after the MAP below the published DA/DH or MDA. The EO procedure will provide obstacle clearance; however, these procedures can be complicated and should be reviewed in advance.

Engine out procedures are developed for and specific to the air carrier or operator and a specific runway, not airport.

They are required by reg’s to ensure terrain clearance in the event of an engine failure on takeoff or a missed approach/rejected landing with an engine failure due to the reduced climb performance. The air carrier regulations require them. Performance engineering must determine the max landing weight for expected conditions to ensure climb gradients for the engine out procedure are met and also for all engines operating normally. The engine out Proc. allows a higher landing weight than the published missed might with an engine failure due to terrain as it uses a different route or procedure.

The closest thing to EO Proc. in GA planes is an ODP if published.

Hope that makes more sense.

Dan

Oookay, now that makes sense, thanks!