Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Terrain clearance on an amended missed approach

bq unless being vectored or given a direct routing which is not in your flight plan

Thanks for that one as it’s an interesting caveat, given that the intermediate of approach, the missed, the hold are always not part of your flight plan (an ICAO FPL only contains departure, airways, routes, arrivals, direct to initial fix or overhead: FPL = STAR+IAF, SID, DCT, AWY but not IAP or MAP)

Does it mean, ATC are not responsible for obstacles during vector or direct from missed? or opposite?

Last Edited by Ibra at 03 Sep 11:56
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

@Ibra wrote “Not necessarily, nothing to do with airspace if ATC ask you to go missed from circling on downwind due to blocked runway at CDG, the controllers and procedure designer are not responsible of terrain, you have to figure it out yourself !”
The circling and the missed are still part of the procedure in this case and you fly to the runway and carry out a normal missed approach procedure.
Has nothing to do with the OP question.
The reason I made the difference between ATC in CAS. Is because you then have a controller( not an advisor) and you are within some sortbof protected space.
With AFIS and/or OCAS the situation is different.
IMO under the circumstances of the OP working with a controller and in CAS the instruction was given as vectors therefore the ATCO takes responsibility for terrain clearance as long as the PIC flies it as cleared. If you think s/he has made a mistake you have the right to say “impossible due to risk of terrain” or “confirm clearance/instruction and negative terrain risk”.
At least that is how I was taught but it is some years ago.
An omnidirectional departure is a procedure even though it is in large degree pilot’s choice of which way to turn etc as long as you meet the published omnidirectional departure procedure rules (its not rules but I can’t think of the word.)

France

The circling and the missed are still part of the procedure in this case and you fly to the runway and carry out a normal missed approach procedure

Got it, so you should ignore any “direct MTD” or “fly 220” or “climb straight ahead” that are issued by Radar Tower ATC in some of these situations when PIC is well away from his MAPT

What you are saying is that you always go fly back and fly missed as published for your approach (ignoring anything else given by ATC), I think that answers OP question but it seems to contradict your statement further on, only one of these is true

I got vector once at low level and took it (not flying the missed properly), all was my mistake !

Last Edited by Ibra at 03 Sep 13:39
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Got it, so you should ignore any “direct MTD” or “fly 220” or “climb straight ahead” that are issued by Radar Tower ATC in some of these situations when PIC is well away from his MAPT

I don’t think so.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I didn’t bring up the circling to land scenario, I believe you did and I simply answered your question and not that of the OP when I wrote that. I have never had a procedure interrupted in the manner of your scenario. However if a controller were to give me vectors during a circle to land I might well ask for clarification.
I would of course be visual on the runway at this point so would have the benefit of possibly being able to see the problem.
But here AIUI the OP was asking about going missed and then being given vectors by an ATCO to the missed approach holding point or en route to an alternate which are different to the published procedure following a missed approach.
IIRC Brest missed approach is or was vectors to the NDB GU following going missed.

France

Ibra wrote:

Thanks for that one as it’s an interesting caveat, given that the intermediate of approach, the missed, the hold are always not part of your flight plan (an ICAO FPL only contains departure, airways, routes, arrivals, direct to initial fix or overhead: FPL = STAR+IAF, SID, DCT, AWY but not IAP or MAP)

Does it mean, ATC are not responsible for obstacles during vector or direct from missed? or opposite?

If you are on an established route/procedure or on a direct which is in your flight plan, then you are responsible for obstacle clearance. If you are vectored or on a direct which is not in your flight plan, then ATC is responsible for obstacle clearance. I don’t know if there are any situations which are not covered by any of these cases.

The full text of SERA.8015(b)(6) is

When vectoring or assigning a direct routing not included in the flight plan, which takes an IFR flight off published ATS route or instrument procedure, an air traffic controller providing ATS surveillance service shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance exists at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot re-joins the flight plan route or joins a published ATS route or instrument procedure.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 03 Sep 15:29
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

So the quite common “in case of missed approach fly heading 270 and climb 2000” should keep you clear of obstacles if you start the turn above 400ft. And it should be given by a radar (e.g. approach) controller or by the tower on their behalf. I guess they know what headings they can give you from being able to do the same on a takeoff clearance?

The alternative is to not accept this instruction below the MSA as published on the approach plate and instead follow the published missed approach until reaching a safe altitude. But that will cause chaos if the deviation was for traffic from another runway or something like that.

Last Edited by Thomas28 at 04 Sep 23:54
Netherlands

400ft agl is bigger fish to fry: it’s necessary conditiom but it’s not sufficient likely no one understands what that 400ft agl is about but one hears it regularly from airliners pilots or some instructors from time to time out of the topic, @gallois told me last time I need to remain VMC untill 400ft agl on non-instrument departures as well

First, don’t you need published departure (SID or OMNI/ODP) or approved departure (airliners mannual) to turn at 400ft agl? or sometimes bellow 400ft agl !

My understanding to make specs for obstacle clearances in published departures, the TERPS & PANS-OPS make load of assumptions on how high an aircraft cross runway end (35ft HGT), how much deg on runway track (15deg TRK), how many engines it has and what performance class it is, how early they can turn (400ft) and how much bank angle they can take (15deg AOB)…all this does not mean one should turn off route on ATC vector at 400ft agl?

However, if it’s an instrument runway with published omnidirectional departure up to 400ft agl, why not?

Also, ATC assumes rate one turns for vectors, the published turns at low level may specify own bank angles and speeds !!!

PS: in VMC, one way turn toward that ATC vector at 50ft height (not before runway end point)

Last Edited by Ibra at 05 Sep 10:42
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

I don’t recall ever saying it was a legal requirement to climb to 400ft before turning on an omnidirectional departure.
The only legal requirement I can remember is you should be at least 120ft before a turn.
That is a figure from memory from books about designing instrument departure procedures.
I may have mentioned 400ft but not as a legal figure as one that might be considered in a low visibilty departure from an uncontrolled airfield without a SID.
(If I gave a different impression I apologise)
AIUI visibility for an IFR departure from an uncontrolled airfield (I think also from a controlled airport) should be at least RVR 400m.
This again AIUI is a recommended minimum for non commercial ops. There are recommended reductions to lower RVRs if the runway has runway lighting.Please note recommended rather than legal.
These figures can be changed up or down by the airfield in question. In other words they can demand higher limits.
The PIC can also set their own limits but because of the recommendations are expected to be higher.
IIRC my 400ft AGL before a turn on take off from an uncontrolled airfield without SID is a personal minimum based on my personal briefing " ….. if there is a minor problem after take off I will climb to 400ft AAL and if still VMC make a left/right hand circuit to land back on runway xx if not in VMC I will climb to 1000ft AAL before (doing whatever it is I have planned to do)
As I hope I explained I have not found a LEGAL requirement for a non commercial operation but I am aware that there are rule changes occurring regularly and whilst I try to keep up it is not always easy.
However the OP was about a missed approach and whether or not to accept vectors below MSA. I think @Airborne_Again has both explained and given the legal or recommended force behind his post.

France

I think it’s fair to say that 99.99% of instrument or visual procedures are designed assuming no turns bellow 400ft agl (departure? and circling?), those that require such will likely to have VMC restriction or ceiling minima

One can pick that as sensible personal weather minima for straight-in departure in case they need to turn for some reason

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top