Question of aborted landing after instrument approach

Why is ODP an emergency procedure?

It isn't. However, a go-around started in IMC far enough past the MAP
at an airport where the missed approach procedure does not provide
obstacle clearance if it's started past the MAP could certainly qualify
as an emergency for purposes of choosing a course of action.

The ODP would be a reasonable course of action in that circumstance, at
least until a point at which the missed approach could be joined.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Why is ODP an emergency procedure?


It isn't. However, a go-around started in IMC far enough past the MAP
at an airport where the missed approach procedure does not provide
obstacle clearance if it's started past the MAP could certainly qualify
as an emergency for purposes of choosing a course of action.

Read AIM 5.5.5

The ODP would be a reasonable course of action in that circumstance, at
least until a point at which the missed approach could be joined.

Jose

That would be your argument if any enforcement action resulted in the
event of a loss of separation.

It isn't. However, a go-around started in IMC far enough past the MAP at an airport where the missed approach procedure does not provide obstacle clearance if it's started past the MAP could certainly qualify as an emergency for purposes of choosing a course of action.


Read AIM 5.5.5

I did. Read AIM 5.5.5 (a)(4), which makes my point.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
It isn't. However, a go-around started in IMC far enough past the
MAP at an airport where the missed approach procedure does not
provide obstacle clearance if it's started past the MAP could
certainly qualify as an emergency for purposes of choosing a course
of action.



Read AIM 5.5.5


I did. Read AIM 5.5.5 (a)(4), which makes my point.

Jose

It does? Help me understand your logic.

5.5.5. (a) (4)

4. If executing a missed approach prior to reaching the MAP, fly the
lateral navigation path of the instrument procedure to the MAP. Climb to
the altitude specified in the missed approach procedure, except when a
maximum altitude is specified between the final approach fix (FAF) and
the MAP. In that case, comply with the maximum altitude restriction.
Note, this may require a continued descent on the final approach.

It does? Help me understand your logic.

One doesn't just "fly the missed approach" regardless of where on the
approach one is when they decide to miss. That was the flip answer
given by the spammer. One must modify one's procedure depending on
circumstances. 5.5.5.a4 gives one example - fly the lateral approach
path while (usually) climbing, but don't actually fly the missed
approach path until the MAP. This is an example of flying "what it
takes" to put you on the missed approach path.

It's not my point that an ODP is necessary if one misses =after= passing
the MAP (though that may in fact be needed in some cases). Rather, my
point is that the spammer's flip answer is dangerous due to lack of
thought, and makes me suspect that the spammer's web site is equally
dangerous. In aviation, lack of thought can kill.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
It does? Help me understand your logic.


One doesn't just "fly the missed approach" regardless of where on the
approach one is when they decide to miss. That was the flip answer
given by the spammer. One must modify one's procedure depending on
circumstances. 5.5.5.a4 gives one example - fly the lateral approach
path while (usually) climbing, but don't actually fly the missed
approach path until the MAP. This is an example of flying "what it
takes" to put you on the missed approach path.

The thread started about missing the approach below MDA, which
presumably would be beyond the missed approach point. Without a margin
of performance that could become problematic. (As do many ODPs that
have climb gradient requirements much steeper than a missed approach
commenced at MDA and at the MAP.

The language you cite is for someone who decides to miss well prior to
the MAP. The guidance you cite in that instance is in no way
improvising, but is what the criteria protects for by default.