Missed from a visual

Tommay85

Tommay85

Well-Known Member
We had a pilot awhile ago(like a few months ago) that was on a visual and a rain shower that was sitting off the coast decided it wanted to give the airport some love. The pilot went around and was told to contact center. The frequency was pretty jammed up and they couldn't get a word in. There was a pretty serious storm straight ahead, so they deviated to the right. The MSA in that area is 5200, so they climbed.

Once they got on with center, they were pretty upset about the climb and the turn.

What do you, as controllers, expect for a missed approach off a visual with storms in the area? I personally would have flown the missed approach procedure for the approach I loaded to back up the visual, which may be wrong. It would have worked with the weather in this scenario.

This is at TJBQ. A non radar D airport. They're apparently not allowed to give turns or climbs without first talking to SJU center. Seems like the tower maybe should have talked to center before handing the airplane off, but I don't know.

There was some short discussion with the controllers after the fact, but no answer or solution was given. Other than they may develop a local break away procedure since this scenario has the potential to be pretty common in the summer months.
 
Last edited:
In that instance? Tower talks to center, in the absence of that sectors should have been split or if not practical, flow should have been controlled. Somebody best be talking to somebody. If all that falls through, looks like its a PIC decision. We don't really protect for missed on a visual though.
 
genot said:
In that instance? Tower talks to center, in the absence of that sectors should have been split or if not practical, flow should have been controlled. Somebody best be talking to somebody. If all that falls through, looks like its a PIC decision. We don't really protect for missed on a visual though.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

I feel for them. We get weather that just sits all afternoon and 99% of the time they just disapate. Sometimes they just move or grow suddenly and really mess everything up.
 
genot said:
In that instance? Tower talks to center, in the absence of that sectors should have been split or if not practical, flow should have been controlled. Somebody best be talking to somebody. If all that falls through, looks like its a PIC decision. We don't really protect for missed on a visual though.
Click to expand...

ATC does separate for a missed approach on a visual. There just is not a published missed approach procedure.

7110.65V
7−4−1. VISUAL APPROACH
A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an
aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the
airport of intended landing; it is not an instrument
approach procedure. Also, there is no missed
approach segment. An aircraft unable to complete a
visual approach must be handled as any go-around
and appropriate separation must be provided.
Click to expand...

Coordination should have been affected between the tower and the center. If that wasn't done in a satisfactory manner, then that's on ATC. You did what you needed to do to stay safe and legal. Filing a safety report might be prudent just to share the experience and improve future situations like this.
 
FM_Weasel said:
ATC does separate for a missed approach on a visual. There just is not a published missed approach procedure..
Click to expand...

Sure, sure. I have two controlled and one uncontrolled airports in striking distance of my International's final. The uncontrolled also shares a final with our busiest class D Tower. You can get
to a point where playing non radar shenanigans hurts the entire operation though.
 
Here at N90, we call those go arounds on visuals as "rejected landings". Usually the tower will hit the landline on the departure radar and go "XYZ is going around, how do you want him?", or "XYZ is going around, we gave him runway heading up to 3000".

It's on us controllers (both at the tower and the radar) to continue to provide IFR separation to that aircraft. Seems to me that in the particular event the OP described, the local controller didn't know how to handle it, and just dumped him unannounced on the center frequency.
 
UAL747400 said:
The pilot went around and was told to contact center. The frequency was pretty jammed up and they couldn't get a word in.

Seems like the tower maybe should have talked to center before handing the airplane off, but I don't know.
Click to expand...

If the pilot couldn't get a word in, then the tower was probably having difficulty reaching the center controller as well.
 
N90-EWR said:
Here at N90, we call those go arounds on visuals as "rejected landings". Usually the tower will hit the landline on the departure radar and go "XYZ is going around, how do you want him?", or "XYZ is going around, we gave him runway heading up to 3000".

It's on us controllers (both at the tower and the radar) to continue to provide IFR separation to that aircraft. Seems to me that in the particular event the OP described, the local controller didn't know how to handle it, and just dumped him unannounced on the center frequency.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think he was just as shocked as the pilot was that the weather moved over the field and maybe panicked. I guess they had a meeting and ironed all this out. We'll see I guess.
 
I was taught as a controller there is no missed approach procedure for a visual, and if there is a rejected landing the aircraft would be expected to remain in tower's airspace unless otherwise coordinated. If I were a pilot and had to go around on a visual, I would remain in a standard traffic pattern. If that were impossible I would claim pilot authority, but going missed on the IAP I had initially planned would not be my first thought.
 
greg1016 said:
I was taught as a controller there is no missed approach procedure for a visual, and if there is a rejected landing the aircraft would be expected to remain in tower's airspace unless otherwise coordinated. If I were a pilot and had to go around on a visual, I would remain in a standard traffic pattern. If that were impossible I would claim pilot authority, but going missed on the IAP I had initially planned would not be my first thought.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. Why would tower call TRACON to let them know of a visual on a go around, as in, why would the aircraft be going back to radar, rather than just staying with tower and being given a turn to downwind for the pattern? Spacing should be able to be made with the final controller with regards to traffic being vectored to final for their visual approaches, I would think.
 
Every time I've been told to go around with tower at a major airport, it was along the lines of N12345, go around. Turn right heading XXX, climb and maintain 4000, contact approach on....
 
z987k said:
Every time I've been told to go around with tower at a major airport, it was along the lines of N12345, go around. Turn right heading XXX, climb and maintain 4000, contact approach on....
Click to expand...

I've seen a more than a few times where at a major airport it's been for any aircraft "XXX go around, make right traffic for RW XX, pattern altitude XXXX"
 
MikeD said:
That's what I was thinking. Why would tower call TRACON to let them know of a visual on a go around, as in, why would the aircraft be going back to radar, rather than just staying with tower and being given a turn to downwind for the pattern? Spacing should be able to be made with the final controller with regards to traffic being vectored to final for their visual approaches, I would think.
Click to expand...

when you're a B777 going around at EWR, staying in the pattern is not an option. Whomever taught you guys that a rejected landing IFR aircraft on a visual must go to the pattern is wrong. Just because he went around on a visual approach, that doesn't change his status from IFR to VFR, so WE must continue to provide IFR separation. While it may be possible at some slow middle of nowhere VFR tower to keep an IFR aircraft in the pattern, in the busy hubs where you're running a non stop final at minimum separation at the threshold, this is just not possible.
 
Last edited:
N90-EWR said:
when you're a B777 going around at EWR, staying in the pattern is not an option. Whomever taught you guys that a rejected landing IFR aircraft on a visual goes to the pattern is wrong. Just because he went around on a visual approach, that doesn't change his status from IFR to VFR, so WE must continue to provide IFR separation. While it may be possible at some slow middle of nowhere VFR tower to keep an IFR aircraft in the pattern, in the busy hubs where you're running a non stop final at minimum separation at the treshold, this is just not possible.
Click to expand...

I figure some places its doable, other places it isn't. Maybe EWR isn't an option, but I don't think that would necessarily make it an impossibility for everywhere else. Would be one of those "it depends" things, I would think. Like I said, I've seen where the go around has been given the VFR pattern, and tower/approach coordinating the appropriate gap wit the final controller to fit that traffic in, thus coordinating the separation. Like you say, probably wouldn't work everywhere or at all times, but seems to depend on location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top