Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Written Procedures for Go-Arounds at Busy Places

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Don't know if this helps at all but you can hear the tension when it goes wrong !
    Lots of flights were coming and going during the 7PM hour a few nights ago, Swiss International was given full length to land, which happened to go thru a cr...


    This chart applies to LHR 27L approach plate. Standard missed approach/go around procedures seems to my untrained eye to be to follow the instructions to climb to 2000 feet on runway heading and at 1080 feet or I-LL DME, whichever is later, turn left to 149 degrees. Continue climb to 3000 feet to LON DME 6 and then follow ATC instructions. Otherwise, proceed to Epsom NDB and fly holding pattern at 3000 feet and await instructions.



    I think I've read that correctly ?

    What I cannot find anywhere is any written instructions to be applied to any other potential conflicting aircraft. I can only assume that other potential conflicts will be instructed appropriately by ATC to maintain separation.

    As far as GA VFR airfields are concerned any aircraft going around will turn to the dead side of the circuit after stating intentions on the area or field frequency and engage Mark One eyeball radar scanning while maintaining VFR and rejoining the circuit according to published joining instructions.

    Do I pass this section of the test ?
    Last edited by brianw999; 2014-11-03, 01:56.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

    Comment


    • #17
      I think 3WE is pointing out that in VFR there are problems with the "V" that can potentially lead to disasterous consequences and in light of what I have learned here I have to agree.

      So just to restate- Is anyone aware of some halfway formal procedures (altitudes and headings that are reserved ahead of time) to send go-around traffic away from a big flow of departing traffic in the event of a go-around?
      Yes, Strict adherance to published procedures regardless of conditions. Wow, that was hard...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Yes, Strict adherance to published procedures regardless of conditions. Wow, that was hard...
        1- Let me remind you that many, probably most of the pilots are not IFR rated and cannot be trusted to reliably follow a procedure as the one described by Brian, because they are not rated to do so, because they are not required to have the approach plate, and because their airplane is not required to have all the necessary equipment needed to follow it. And yet, these pilots and planes are welcome (or at least accepted) at may airports where airliners operate too.

        2- Even following the MAP won't guarantee you any specific degree of protection during VFR operations, because the missing approach path doesn't need to be protected from conflicts as in IFR operations.

        What you are proposing is every airplane, pilot, and controller to be IFR rated and following IFR rules all the time. I don't think that's a good idea.

        Welcome to reality (Frank Sinatra).

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          1- Let me remind you that many, probably most of the pilots are not IFR rated and cannot be trusted to reliably follow a procedure as the one described by Brian, because they are not rated to do so, because they are not required to have the approach plate, and because their airplane is not required to have all the necessary equipment needed to follow it. And yet, these pilots and planes are welcome (or at least accepted) at may airports where airliners operate too.

          2- Even following the MAP won't guarantee you any specific degree of protection during VFR operations, because the missing approach path doesn't need to be protected from conflicts as in IFR operations.

          What you are proposing is every airplane, pilot, and controller to be IFR rated and following IFR rules all the time. I don't think that's a good idea.
          I guess what I'm proposing is that any pilot accessing a field shared by airlines must have the plate and be rated to follow it. If this means that any GA pilot accessing a field shared by airlines must be IFR rated, then so be it. That just seems entirely reasonable to me. I also can't fathom why the missed approach path would not be protected in VFR if there are obvious blind spots involved in visual flight.

          Welcome to reality (Frank Sinatra).
          Realities can be changed.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Realities can be changed.
            If there is a willingness to do so.

            In this case, while the discussion is interesting and a change may be good, the change idea in particular that you are proposing I'm quite sure is not sheared by the aviation community at large, including all parties.

            What you are proposing is basically:
            - banning most private pilots from any airport served by airliners,
            - banning airliners from landing at any runways that lack an instrument approach procedure, and
            - requiring IFR separation at all times around airports served by airliners.

            That would be a major disruption at all aviation segments.
            Looks like you are trying to kill an ant with a bazooka.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              - banning most private pilots from any airport served by airliners
              For what it's worth... I think the airlines have been quietly pressuring the FAA to do exactly this for a long time.
              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

              Eric Law

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by elaw View Post
                For what it's worth... I think the airlines have been quietly pressuring the FAA to do exactly this for a long time.
                On the other hand, the airliners operate in some airports (some of them non-towered) that have more GA operations than airline operations.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  In the third sentence of his opening post 3WE specified airports such as ATL and DFW.....and you don't get much bigger than them. In lots of years taking photos at LHR I've only ever seen one GA movement, which was last year and was a Beech KingAir landing on 09L. The major problem as a GA pilot in getting into a major airport such as LHR is getting a slot in the first place. Then you have to fit a slow moving aircraft into a fast moving stream of airliners, get on the ground, clear the runway before becoming a lunchtime snack for one of the huge GE/CFM/RR engines coming up behind you and then pay the landing fee which I'm sure would be enough to feed all the residents of Myrtle Avenue and the spotters in the park at the end of it for a month ! Small wonder that you don't see much GA traffic at Heathrow. There's no need to ban them, they can't in anyway ! To be honest, why go to Heathrow when there's Biggin Hill to the south and North Weald to the north of London, both of which can handle large GA aircraft and some small airliners.
                  I believe though that it's different in the USA. There, you can land a Cessna 150 at some of the largest airports in the world. I can only assume that it's a result of a "because it's there" attitude because the landing fees must be incredible. Personally speaking, I think that GA pilots who are not instrument rated and are flying an inadequately equipped aircraft should not be permitted into a major airport. Let's face it, there's enough GA airfields around close to the major cities and they're a damn sight cheaper to use.
                  Anyway, getting back to the subject. I've found a document that lays down the requirements for go-arounds at Heathrow so I would imagine similar specific requirements are laid down for every major world airport. The clip is taken from this document and gives an overview of all runway operations at Heathrow...... http://ivao.co.uk/atc/egll/int
                  ..........................................................................................
                  Missed Approach procedures
                  The missed approach procedures are as follows:

                  Runway
                  Missed Approach Procedure
                  27L
                  Climb to 2000ft - straight ahead until passing 1076 (1000)ft or Zero DME I-LL inbound, whichever is later, then left onto track 150°MAG. When established and passing 6 DME LON, climb to 3000ft without delay. Continue as directed by ATC.
                  09R
                  Climb straight to 3000ft. Continue as directed by ATC.
                  27R
                  Climb to 3000ft - straight ahead until passing 1577 (1500)ft or Zero DME I-RR inbound, whichever is later, turn right onto track 320° MAG. Continue as directed by ATC.
                  09L
                  Climb to 3000ft - straight ahead until passing 1580 (1500)ft or Zero DME I-A inbound, whichever is later, then left onto track 040°MAG. Continue as directed by ATC.
                  The appropriate INT DIR will be made aware of the missed approach by the tower.
                  The tower controllers will make each other aware of the missed approach and will hold further departures and issue any tactical headings to aircraft already departing to ensure they are separated from the missed approach aircraft.
                  The INT DIR should issue a heading and/or frequency for the aircraft to contact
                  The INT DIR should inform the relevant tower controller when outbound traffic can be resumed again
                  Following a missed approach, if the aircraft wishes to hold, two NDB's are available for holding:

                  Epsom (EPM) - inbound heading 274/L Turns, minimum level 3000ft
                  Chiltern (CHT) - inbound heading 293/L Turns, minimum level 3000ft
                  In the event of an associated radio failure with a missed approach, the aircraft should follow the procedures detailed in the UK AIP.

                  Terrain Clearance:
                  Terrain clearance is the responsibility of the pilot whether or not specific heading instructions have been issued by ATC.

                  The lowest level within the RMAC that can be assigned to aircraft which is terrain safe is 1800ft, except around the Crystal Palace masts, which is 2000ft. (Note that anything below 2400ft, except in the final approach areas, is the responsibility of the Special VFR position)
                  Last edited by brianw999; 2014-11-03, 15:49.
                  If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    3WE,

                    Something like this for example?

                    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


                    A SAX South African Express Canadaiir CRJ-200 [...] was on a final visual approach to Port Elizabeth's runway 26.

                    A SAA South African Airways Airbus A320-200 [...], not yet lined up received clearance for an immediate takeoff from runway 26 with the addition "no stopping on the runway".

                    The crew of the CRJ2 decided to initiate a go-around at 500 feet AGL offsetting their aircraft to the right of the runway.

                    [...] both aircraft received TCAS resolution advisories during the climb out.

                    [...] the occurrence has been rated a serious incident by South Africa's Accident Investigation Board [...].

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                      They've definitely run into this issue in practice several times at JFK



                      I'm not sure exactly where the procedures are written but I think they are standardized and trained for to a certain extent at each control tower.

                      At LAX go arounds are usually told to maintain 2,000 till the controller figures out where to point them and keep them clear of departures.
                      This is addressing my original question and thanks!
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        3WE,

                        Something like this for example?

                        http://avherald.com/h?article=47d2ba73&opt=0
                        Bingo, Gabriel, something like that...

                        My comment was not about "private" aircraft...just that when the tower is landing and releasing tons of planes in visual conditions without the true IMC sequencing and separation, an unplanned go around in visual conditions might place the go-around guy in the middle of and very close to multiple departures.

                        For a single runway- no big deal someone can go left and someone else can go right. Two runways still offer good escape routes...but three runways- I can see a couple of planes sandwiched close together in the middle, with limited choices for diverging.

                        I also worry that Evan is oblivious to the VMC operations that take place versus IMC operations. It's great to see ATL/DFW/ORD on a good day and then on a gray drizzly day...Clear weather- you will see a plane touch down right next to a plane taking flight on runway pairs. In honest IMC, takeoff clearance does not come until the landing plane has touched down.

                        Throw in a little honest IMC and a lot of delays happen. These delays don't happen on nice days and because there's no extra IFR separation between a landing plane and a departing plane to deal with an unplanned go-around.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                          As I understand it a missed approach is where the the approach is abandoned by the crew for a variety of reasons.

                          A go around is the resulting action.

                          A go around initiated by the crew is normally a pre decided published action where the aircraft flies a specific heading at a specific speed to a specified height at a specific place in order to clear the area safely. This gives the crew time to act and advise ATC of their go around and routing intentions and to give ATC time to formulate any further actions required.

                          A go around instructed by ATC for whatever reason will involve one or more crews/aircraft all of which will be under the direct control of ATC from the beginning of the incident.

                          As I say, this is how I understand it to be but I could very easily be wrong.

                          It's worth noting that your average unlicensed GA airfield that has a radio advisory facility (NOTE: Advisory....not Control) cannot give clearances or other instructions to pilots. They can only advise on currently existing conditions so it's the pilots who make the final decision.
                          My Interpretation: (no disagreement- just a differing angle).

                          Generally- a missed approach is that it's hard IMC and you don't find the runway (or you get off track). In that case you go around.

                          A go around is more generic...If it's clear and a million and a school bus full of nuns and orphans pulls onto the runway, you go around. If the landing gear lights don't show green you go around. If you aren't within stable approach criteria, you go around (even if you are dead on the ILS and can see the runway). If you bank left when you should have banked right and it feels all wrong, go around. If you land and bounce and you don't like things, go around, a random wind gust you don't like... And if you reach the MDA/MAP/DH and just see clouds, go around.

                          Now, a missed approach procedure. Generally- that's for an outlying airport...they have them at big airports too, but ATC usually tells folks what to do and skips much of it. Sure, you could use a missed approach procedure in VMC as well as IMC and ATC probably expects you to at least start flying the MAP and maybe it even helps with my question.

                          Thanks again to Lefty and Gabriel for addressing the question (it was kind of subtle, but it's also real). Don't need additional Evan FAR's (EFARs?)- I was more interested if there were some "rules of thumb" or written "guidelines" like Left Seat alluded to.

                          By the way- the default, "maintain visual separation" is still a damn adequate solution...I was just after additional nuances.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X