Question of aborted landing after instrument approach

Sam Spade wrote:
Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



Jim Macklin wrote:

On a missed approach begun early, prior to reaching the MAP, climb
to the missed approach altitude but do not turn until reaching the
MAP or that point indicated on the chart. If a turn is indicated,
perform that turn as charted, but not prior to the expected
position past the MAP.







From a well known instrument instructor and writer:


I don't believe this is true. Follow the instructions WHEREVER you
start the miss, and there is no need to fly to the MAP, UNLESS
specified.

Standard challenge of mine for many decades: Find me an approach
anywhere where executing the miss as stated will get you in trouble
if you miss "early" inside the FAF.

I've no objection if you DO it to feel good, but I don't believe it
is a REQUIREMENT, built into the system.


Best...
John




John obviously doesn't know TERPs criteria.






So name an approach where you get in trouble by flying the published
missed prior to the MAP where it doesn't say on the plate specifically
not to do that.


The problem is what he says, "There is to need to fly to the MAP,
unless specified."

Correctuin, I left out the critical word "no."

Sam Spade wrote:


So name an approach where you get in trouble by flying the published
missed prior to the MAP where it doesn't say on the plate specifically
not to do that.


The problem is what he says, "There is to need to fly to the MAP,
unless specified."

There is no problem beginning the missed approach early. There is a
huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb, of course) on an
early missed approach.




I'll take that as an I can't.

"Hamish Reid" wrote in message
...
In article om,
wrote:

Ah, that makes sense!

However, let's say it was a snowplow or a deer, or a mechanical problem
with the landing gear (that's far fetched since the gear goes down
sooner -- or at least it does when I'm flying )

A snowplow on the runway at HAF?! You'd have a lot more problems than
just flying the missed :-).

By then hell would have frozen over

Okay, snowplow is a little far-fetched. Maybe one of those old
abandoned cop cars somehow rolls onto the runway.

-- dgj

Chris wrote:
"Hamish Reid" wrote in message
...
In article om,
wrote:

Ah, that makes sense!

However, let's say it was a snowplow or a deer, or a mechanical problem
with the landing gear (that's far fetched since the gear goes down
sooner -- or at least it does when I'm flying )

A snowplow on the runway at HAF?! You'd have a lot more problems than
just flying the missed :-).

By then hell would have frozen over

Newps writes:

[...] There is no problem beginning the missed approach early.
There is a huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb,
of course) on an early missed approach.

I'll take that as an I can't.

Well, the burden of proof isn't exactly on him, to search all the
approaches just to justify the plainly written regulatory text.

But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
hill directly south of the airport.

- FChE

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

Newps writes:


[...] There is no problem beginning the missed approach early.
There is a huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb,
of course) on an early missed approach.

I'll take that as an I can't.


Well, the burden of proof isn't exactly on him, to search all the
approaches just to justify the plainly written regulatory text.

But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
hill directly south of the airport.


I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10 degrees
off your inbound course.

Newps wrote:


Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

Newps writes:


[...] There is no problem beginning the missed approach early.
There is a huge problem not continuing to the MAP (as you climb,
of course) on an early missed approach.


I'll take that as an I can't.



Well, the burden of proof isn't exactly on him, to search all the
approaches just to justify the plainly written regulatory text.

But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
hill directly south of the airport.


I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10 degrees
off your inbound course.

Try an early turn to JESIE on the KEGE LDA DME Runway 25.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10 degrees
off your inbound course.

Try an early turn to JESIE on the KEGE LDA DME Runway 25.


A turn before the VOR would not be following the missed approach procedure,
no matter where the procedure is started. Climbing direct to the VOR, per
the missed approach procedure, from any point on the procedure track prior
to the MAP, would provide adequate clearance.

Stan Prevost wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10 degrees
off your inbound course.

Try an early turn to JESIE on the KEGE LDA DME Runway 25.



A turn before the VOR would not be following the missed approach procedure,
no matter where the procedure is started. Climbing direct to the VOR, per
the missed approach procedure, from any point on the procedure track prior
to the MAP, would provide adequate clearance.

I agree. But, that is not what everyone thinks to seem.

Newps writes:

But here's one for you: KSFF ILS/DME 21R. If one makes the missed
approach left turn before DME 0.7, one might hit that wee 4500-footer
hill directly south of the airport.

I don't see how that would be a problem. The missed is only 10
degrees off your inbound course.

That's ten degrees in *heading*, off of an inbound course that had
navigational guidance. Add some north wind, a late climb, sloppy
heading control, and some bad luck, and *bang*. Plus it's not just
obstructions. In airport-dense areas, I would imagine one might
trespass on others' airspace by such shenanigans.

Come to think of it, what is the earliest point along the approach
that you would consider it legitimate to turn toward the MAP? If
in your mind, that's the FAF, why?

- FChE