FM_Weasel
Well-Known Member
The reason for the go around in the OPs case was encountering IMC (due to rain showers). I'm confused how you think they should have stayed in the pattern.
Missed from a visual
- Thread starter Tommay85
- Start date
The reason for the go around in the OPs case was encountering IMC (due to rain showers). I'm confused how you think they should have stayed in the pattern.
I'm not talking the OPs situation. I'm talking in general, and in a situation where its possible. IE- no WX issues, no major traffic/flow issues, etc. I've seen planes sent back to radar from a visual approach, and there's next to no one else around. Have also seen where there is some traffic, yet the go around was sent to the pattern (I assume with coordination between tower and radar). Sure, I get that it can't happen everywhere or in all situations, but it seems some are saying it's a "never can be done" thing, when I've seen it done. Curious as to the difference.
IE- if traffic is such that sending them to the VFR pattern to bring them around for landing creates no separation issue with anyone else (whether traffic present or not), then what's the problem? Seems like it could be a case by case thing, or maybe some facilities allow it and some don't?
N90-EWR
Well-Known Member
I didn't say it "never can be done". What I'm saying is that it is not an automatic thing to just send a rejected landing visual to the pattern. Obviously different places, and different traffic situations will call for different course of actions. In the example you provide, yes....if there's no separation issue with anyone else, the tower keeping the go around in the pattern is perfectly ok.
That's what I was wondering. I can see some facilities not allowing it as any kind of common practice, for the reasons you mention........busy, impractical, etc. Or the situation not allowing it. Your explanation makes complete sense.
I just wasn't sure if it was a "not allowed" thing, or more a "case by case or facility by facility" type thing. Appreciate the responses gents, both you and FM Weasel cleared that question up.
GolfChuck
Trustworthy Source
I would assume you have an LOA with tower that specifies exactly what to do in case of a missed visual approach, but the pilot shouldn't be taking it upon his/her self to just do the missed approach on the last IAP cleared. One thing is getting instructions from the tower, another is just taking action on your own. Aquadilla is no Newark. As you see in @FM_Weasel's quote of the 7110, it says "appropriate separation" not "radar separation." Appropriate could me any number of things.
Personally, I take the moral of the story to be if you aren't absolutely sure you will be able to maintain VFR all the way to the field, then don't request a visual approach.
Stinger
Well-Known Member
Depends what the traffic situation is like on whether someone stays in a tower pattern or gets sent back to Approach. If he needs to extend the downwind for 10+ miles most places would rather just have Approach work the plane again.
If at slow facilities every go-around has to be sent back to radar, their procedures are messed up. They try to get every possibility written down so there's no thinking needed to do the job. Just a hindrance to the pilots is all it ends up being.
N90-EWR
Well-Known Member
Rejected landings on visuals happen quite often due to non weather related causes. Traffic didn't clear the runway in time is of the more common reasons I've seen, but there are many others (We had one a week ago because of a deer on the runway!).
Happens often in my neck of the woods. West flow with 160@7 winds that fluctuate to 110@10 for a few minutes. A couple guys on 27R or 28C visuals can't do that and go missed. They get treated exactly as a missed instrument approach gets treated. At our satellite airports (other than MDW), if an arrival goes around the tower decides whether or not to keep the arrival in the pattern or ship him back to us for another approach sequence.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
I actually had this happen three days ago. We started out on a VOR A to circle to the runway (which requires VFR because we aren't authorized for circling approaches. Broke out in time to find the runway and were cleared for a visual approach (by tower). A combination of tailwinds and a huge rain storm caused us to go around at about 400 feet. Tower asked if we wanted to "maneuver visually to land in the opposite direction", which wasn't going to work because we were already back in the clouds at that point. Got a heading to fly and a hand off to approach again. It worked fine, but the captain was all set to fly the published missed (from the VOR A), which had absolutely no relation to the procedure (visual approach to runway 8) that we were flying when we went missed).
Makes sense. Being a controlled field with an approach control too, climbout instructions may or may not resemble the published missed. Whereas had the tower/approach been closed or there hadn't been one, the standard climbing turn towards the airport then execute the missed, I imagine would have been appropriate.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
From the AIM:
IOW, if you accept the visual, I think this all means
(1) there is no applicable missed approach procedure. Period. You don't get to make one up or select one from a different approach because you like it. That makes sense since you in radar environment you are not likely to get the published missed anyway and the published missed you decide on your own to use choose may well interfere wit other traffic.
(2) you are effectively saying you can maintain visual conditions for the approach and any need to abort the landing, at least until you inform ATC (easier when the airport is towered) that you have gone missed.
(3) The non-towered airport situation is the dicier one. Towered, the discussion with ATC takes place immediately. Non-towered, if for some reason the weather is an issue, you may have a problem on your hands. Of course, If you don't think you can maintain visual conditions for the approach and the early part of going missed, I think the solution is, don't accept the visual in the first place.
A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.
IOW, if you accept the visual, I think this all means
(1) there is no applicable missed approach procedure. Period. You don't get to make one up or select one from a different approach because you like it. That makes sense since you in radar environment you are not likely to get the published missed anyway and the published missed you decide on your own to use choose may well interfere wit other traffic.
(2) you are effectively saying you can maintain visual conditions for the approach and any need to abort the landing, at least until you inform ATC (easier when the airport is towered) that you have gone missed.
(3) The non-towered airport situation is the dicier one. Towered, the discussion with ATC takes place immediately. Non-towered, if for some reason the weather is an issue, you may have a problem on your hands. Of course, If you don't think you can maintain visual conditions for the approach and the early part of going missed, I think the solution is, don't accept the visual in the first place.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Thanks for pointing that out. Filing what I was thinking into my "crap that's wrong box".
Autothrust Blue
“If you jump on my shift, that’s just rude, man.”
Cases (1) and (2) at busy terminals are resolved by "Air carrier 5155, cancel approach clearance, maintain (___) and track the localizer."