How does this missed approach work?

[MAKG1]

Virtually every missed approach I've seen has a structure where you perform some set of maneuvers and eventually arrive at a missed approach hold.

Now, you usually get some sort of request for intentions before arriving there, but you might not, and there is always the possibility of lost comms.

This approach terminates at a navaid without any hold. What do you do when you get there if you want to try the approach again? V108 PITTS V6 REJOY? That's not very obvious from the plate. The VOR approach has you use radial 044 to get to REJOY, also with no hold. Curiously, the two RNAV approaches do have holds depicted at REJOY. What if someone else is on the approach?

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1511/pdf/05320LDA19R.PDF

 

[Velocity173]

I'd say if I went missed, with no alternate MA instructions from ATC, I'd fly direct the VOR and execute a hold with right turns. I'm sure I'd never reach that fix though because ATC would have me on vectors long before getting there.

 

[mscard88]

I'd say if I went missed, with no alternate MA instructions from ATC, I'd fly direct the VOR and execute a hold with right turns. I'm sure I'd never reach that fix though because ATC would have me on vectors long before getting there.

Agree with the above. Seems like ATC has to issue "in event of MA instructions" but it's been many years so not sure.

 

[roncachamp]

Agree with the above. Seems like ATC has to issue "in event of MA instructions" but it's been many years so not sure.

The MA instructions are published, no need for ATC to issue anything. The concern seems to be the absence of a missed approach holding pattern in the event of lost comm. I don't see cause for concern, having a holding pattern depicted offers no advantage and solves no problem in that situation.

 

[MAKG1]

It seems to me, if I went missed 'cause I was right at minimums, I'd want a place to hold and collect my wits (and options). Retrying the same approach is probably not the best option, but it's one of them.

If I'm in contact with ATC, I can get a custom hold or vectors for that.

If I'm not, I need to know where the protected airspace is. Preferably somewhere where ATC could guess what I'm going to do next. Flying back out onto an airway doesn't seem to do that. Holding at a missed approach hold is pretty obvious.

 

[roncachamp]

It seems to me, if I went missed 'cause I was right at minimums, I'd want a place to hold and collect my wits (and options). Retrying the same approach is probably not the best option, but it's one of them.

If I'm in contact with ATC, I can get a custom hold or vectors for that.

If I'm not, I need to know where the protected airspace is. Preferably somewhere where ATC could guess what I'm going to do next. Flying back out onto an airway doesn't seem to do that. Holding at a missed approach hold is pretty obvious.

The protected airspace is protected because ATC doesn't let anyone else use it. The absence of a published pattern doesn't change that.

 

[denverpilot]

It seems to me, if I went missed 'cause I was right at minimums, I'd want a place to hold and collect my wits (and options). Retrying the same approach is probably not the best option, but it's one of them.

You don't always get that option. You're supposed to be thinking about what's next after arrival at the missed long before you get there so you can execute it. Every approach ends in a missed, until the last one doesn't.

If you're lost Comm already, you know that after you've announced the miss a couple of times and got no response, and holding isn't going to do anything but burn gas you might need to make the alternate.

No need to waste brain cells and time holding. Get going on whatever Plan B is. Maybe Plan B is trying it again or maybe Plan B is heading to a reasonable alternate, but it isn't circling the VOR.

 

[MAKG1]

The protected airspace is protected because ATC doesn't let anyone else use it. The absence of a published pattern doesn't change that.

And, how does ATC know not to let someone use "it" and what "it" might be, if there is no published hold, in a lost comms condition?

A published pattern makes intentions less arbitrary.

At least it's a radar environment….

 

[Clark1961]

And, how does ATC know not to let someone use "it" and what "it" might be, if there is no published hold, in a lost comms condition?

A published pattern makes intentions less arbitrary.

At least it's a radar environment….

If yer lost comms don't hold. Is that simple enough?

 

[frfly172]

If the controller doesn't give specific missed instructions ,will fly the published missed,then try another approach.

 

[roncachamp]

And, how does ATC know not to let someone use "it" and what "it" might be, if there is no published hold, in a lost comms condition?

The controller knows not to let someone else use it because he already cleared an aircraft to use it. Perhaps you guys believe these holding patterns are depicted on the scope and they're protected by allowing no other aircraft within the displayed pattern. That's not the case. Even if the pattern was on the scope, and I've never seen one on a scope, separation would be the standard radar minimum.

A published pattern makes intentions less arbitrary.

A published pattern says nothing about pilot intentions.

 

[aterpster]

Virtually every missed approach I've seen has a structure where you perform some set of maneuvers and eventually arrive at a missed approach hold.

When there is an airspace and facility issue then there will be no missed approach holding pattern. It will also almost always be in an area where ATC has radar. KCRQ ILS Rwy 24 is an example because the OCN VOR is the only place to go with ground-based navigation and the restricted area precludes a published holding pattern.

If you are lost comm and making the missed approach you are in an emergency situation. You then do what you have to do. FAR 91.185 ends when the missed approach begins.

 

[MAKG1]

When there is an airspace and facility issue then there will be no missed approach holding pattern. It will also almost always be in an area where ATC has radar. KCRQ ILS Rwy 24 is an example because the OCN VOR is the only place to go with ground-based navigation and the restricted area precludes a published holding pattern.

If you are lost comm and making the missed approach you are in an emergency situation. You then do what you have to do. FAR 91.185 ends when the missed approach begins.

Thanks. That explains a lot.

 

[Palmpilot]

When there is an airspace and facility issue then there will be no missed approach holding pattern. It will also almost always be in an area where ATC has radar. KCRQ ILS Rwy 24 is an example because the OCN VOR is the only place to go with ground-based navigation and the restricted area precludes a published holding pattern.

If you are lost comm and making the missed approach you are in an emergency situation. You then do what you have to do. FAR 91.185 ends when the missed approach begins.

In the case of the Concord approach that the OP brought up, could the problem be CCR's proximity to the Travis Air Force Base's alert area A-682?

https://skyvector.com/?ll=38.04491872567355,-122.04519653532891&chart=302&zoom=1

 

[MAKG1]

In the case of the Concord approach that the OP brought up, could the problem be CCR's proximity to the Travis Air Force Base's alert area A-682?

https://skyvector.com/?ll=38.04491872567355,-122.04519653532891&chart=302&zoom=1

Interesting thought, but the localizer (and all the other approaches) blast right over the top of the alert area. The missed approach procedure terminates at 3500, but the airspace tops out at 3000.

 

[aterpster]

In the case of the Concord approach that the OP brought up, could the problem be CCR's proximity to the Travis Air Force Base's alert area A-682?

https://skyvector.com/?ll=38.04491872567355,-122.04519653532891&chart=302&zoom=1

That one doesn't make any sense to me. The VOR and RNAV approaches continue to REJOY and the RNAV approaches go to REJOY and hold.

Because it is a USAF approach control I would guess it depended which staff sgt. was the airspace liaison with the FAA when a given approach was being coordinated.

 

[LDJones]

Virtually every missed approach I've seen has a structure where you perform some set of maneuvers and eventually arrive at a missed approach hold.

Now, you usually get some sort of request for intentions before arriving there, but you might not, and there is always the possibility of lost comms.

This approach terminates at a navaid without any hold. What do you do when you get there if you want to try the approach again? V108 PITTS V6 REJOY? That's not very obvious from the plate. The VOR approach has you use radial 044 to get to REJOY, also with no hold. Curiously, the two RNAV approaches do have holds depicted at REJOY. What if someone else is on the approach?

https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1511/pdf/05320LDA19R.PDF

Personally, I'd Climb to 900', then a climbing left turn to 3500' and proceed direct to the CCR VOR/DME and hold on whatever radial I happened to be on inbound while I sort out next steps with ATC.

If lost comm, I'd proceed to an alternate, if filed, or towards VFR conditions otherwise, I'd figure out the next best place I might get into. ATC is going to be clearing the decks wherever you are happen to be.

 

[roncachamp]

Because it is a USAF approach control I would guess it depended which staff sgt. was the airspace liaison with the FAA when a given approach was being coordinated.

That assumes there was coordination. I served as an Airspace and Procedures Specialist the last six years I was in the FAA. The guy handling Michigan approaches would contact me on things like procedure entry and missed approach, the guy handling Wisconsin never responded to any of my messages.

 

[StinkBug]

When there is an airspace and facility issue then there will be no missed approach holding pattern. It will also almost always be in an area where ATC has radar. KCRQ ILS Rwy 24 is an example because the OCN VOR is the only place to go with ground-based navigation and the restricted area precludes a published holding pattern.

Yet the VOR-A to CRQ has a hold at the OCN VOR published as part of the procedure, as does the approach to OKB. I'm thinking the reason the hold isn't depicted may have something to do with the amount of space on the page. The CRQ ILS plate has OCN right at the edge of the page and the published hold would be off the edge. The approach in the OP shows a turning climb to 3000 direct to the VOR which happens to be right off the edge of the localizer path. If they printed a hold there it'd make a mess of the page.

I think some of you might be over thinking things. Most of the time the missed isn't going to get used and most of the time it does you'll have comms and radar, so if printing a hold is going to make a mess of the part of the approach that is necessary for every attempt then it's probably better that it isn't printed. Same goes for if it just won't fit on the page.

Personally if I had to go missed and lost comms I'd go to CCR, hold on whatever radial I came in on, then take a look at that little circle to find the minimum safe altitude to get me to either my alternate course or back to the IAF to try again. That's the whole reason for the MSA circle isn't it?

 

[aterpster]

Yet the VOR-A to CRQ has a hold at the OCN VOR published as part of the procedure, as does the approach to OKB. I'm thinking the reason the hold isn't depicted may have something to do with the amount of space on the page. The CRQ ILS plate has OCN right at the edge of the page and the published hold would be off the edge. The approach in the OP shows a turning climb to 3000 direct to the VOR which happens to be right off the edge of the localizer path. If they printed a hold there it'd make a mess of the page.

I think some of you might be over thinking things. Most of the time the missed isn't going to get used and most of the time it does you'll have comms and radar, so if printing a hold is going to make a mess of the part of the approach that is necessary for every attempt then it's probably better that it isn't printed. Same goes for if it just won't fit on the page.

Personally if I had to go missed and lost comms I'd go to CCR, hold on whatever radial I came in on, then take a look at that little circle to find the minimum safe altitude to get me to either my alternate course or back to the IAF to try again. That's the whole reason for the MSA circle isn't it?

The VOR-A goes to Mission Bay with no hold. The alternate missed approach does have a hold.

 

[StinkBug]

I meant the approach itself. You have to hold at OCN as part of the approach. It's not the missed, but it's a published hold at OCN, so there's obviously not a conflict with R-2503A/D as you suggested earlier.

 

[aterpster]

I meant the approach itself. You have to hold at OCN as part of the approach. It's not the missed, but it's a published hold at OCN, so there's obviously not a conflict with R-2503A/D as you suggested earlier.

That was my educated guess. Nothing is certain with much of what goes on with procedure designers and their interface with air traffic facilities. The only thing certain is there is no missed approach hold for the ILS 24.

You suggested it was the limitation of chart "real estate." They didn't have problems with that on the VOR-A missed going to Mission Bay. :wink2:

Look at this one for chart "real estate:"

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1511/09852r18.pdf

 

[drgwentzel]

It seems to me, if I went missed 'cause I was right at minimums, I'd want a place to hold and collect my wits (and options). Retrying the same approach is probably not the best option, but it's one of them.

If I'm in contact with ATC, I can get a custom hold or vectors for that.

If I'm not, I need to know where the protected airspace is. Preferably somewhere where ATC could guess what I'm going to do next. Flying back out onto an airway doesn't seem to do that. Holding at a missed approach hold is pretty obvious.

The protected airspace is shown on the MSA circle. If you went missed, you are to climb straight ahead to 900 feet then a climbing left turn to 3500 feet and direct to CCR. You will be clear of obstructions within 25nm of CCR especially on the northeast side. As far as other air traffic is concerned, even in lost comm, ATC still sees you on radar and it will be their job to keep the other aircraft out of your way. From CCR I'd fly out to JOANS intersection (IAF) at the MSA and shoot the approach again, depending on why I went missed in the first place. Maybe if it was sooo low that I couldn't get in, an alternate most-likely would have been filed and I'd be off to that airport.

Gene

 

[Palmpilot]

The protected airspace is shown on the MSA circle. If you went missed, you are to climb straight ahead to 900 feet then a climbing left turn to 3500 feet and direct to CCR. You will be clear of obstructions within 25nm of CCR especially on the northeast side. As far as other air traffic is concerned, even in lost comm, ATC still sees you on radar and it will be their job to keep the other aircraft out of your way. From CCR I'd fly out to JOANS intersection (IAF) at the MSA and shoot the approach again, depending on why I went missed in the first place. Maybe if it was sooo low that I couldn't get in, an alternate most-likely would have been filed and I'd be off to that airport.

According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary, the MSA is for emergency use only. Consequently, in the absence of some condition that elevated the lost comm situation to an emergency, my preference would be to stay on airways, at or above the MEA, from CCR to wherever I wanted to make my next approach attempt.

 

[flyingron]

If yer lost comms don't hold. Is that simple enough?

And unless I needed to place to climb to a safe enroute altitude, why would i hold even if there was one depicted in a lost comm situation.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

This is my home airport, and I have probably flown that approach 30 times. But I don't have a perfect answer for you.... If I did lose comms and really couldn't contact Nor-Cal, Travis, or the Tower, I would go to CCR then to my alternate (if i went missed because the weather is below minimums). If I went missed because of my own error, I would go to CCR and refly the approach from there (CCR is an IAF)
Definitely would change my squawk to lost comms.

 

[roncachamp]

This is my home airport, and I have probably flown that approach 30 times. But I don't have a perfect answer for you.... If I did lose comms and really couldn't contact Nor-Cal, Travis, or the Tower, I would go to CCR then to my alternate (if i went missed because the weather is below minimums). If I went missed because of my own error, I would go to CCR and refly the approach from there.
Definitely would change my squawk to lost comms.

Why??

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Why??

I read the "possibility of loss comms" and I just assumed that was the scenario he was referring to.

Without lost comms, the OP is overthinking the missed approach.
It takes 2 minutes to make that turn and get to the VOR, even in a jet. In that two minutes, there is plenty of time to figure out the next course of action from atc. Travis would probably vector you out again. If someone else isn't coming in (rare) they could even let you start the approach from CCR and fly the backcourse and reversal.

 

[roncachamp]

I read the "possibility of loss comms" and I just assumed that was the scenario he was referring to.

In the event of lost communications you said you would definitely change your squawk to lost comms. You must see some advantage in that code over the assigned discrete code. What might that be?

 

[TheGolfPilot]

In the event of lost communications you said you would definitely change your squawk to lost comms. You must see some advantage in that code over the assigned discrete code. What might that be?

That is the procedure. Swapping to 7600 lets atc know about the lost comms. They can clear the way. If you CAN hear them, just can't talk, they will likely ask you to use your IDENT button to confirm instruction.
I would think not squawking 7600 would be grounds for a ticket pull, lots of potential for confusion.

 

[roncachamp]

That is the procedure. Swapping to 7600 lets atc know about the lost comms. They can clear the way. If you CAN hear them, just can't talk, they will likely ask you to use your IDENT button to confirm instruction.
I would think not squawking 7600 would be grounds for a ticket pull, lots of potential for confusion.

What's the potential for confusion? ATC will know you lost comms the same way you did; there'll be no response. I advocate going to 7600 for no more than a minute then going back to the assigned discrete code. The 7600 code sets off a very loud, very annoying alarm in many terminal facilities and that doesn't help anybody. The discrete code also tracks better.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That is the procedure. Swapping to 7600 lets atc know about the lost comms. They can clear the way. If you CAN hear them, just can't talk, they will likely ask you to use your IDENT button to confirm instruction.
I would think not squawking 7600 would be grounds for a ticket pull, lots of potential for confusion.

Well, maybe. Practically speaking, in the real world, what are the most likely causes of lost comm?

 

[midlifeflyer]

BTW, to answer the original question, I'd probably apply the guidance in AIM 5-3-8.c. ("If no holding pattern is charted ...") lost comm or not. It's also mentioned in the Instrument Flying Handbook.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

What's the potential for confusion? ATC will know you lost comms the same way you did; there'll be no response. I advocate going to 7600 for no more than a minute then going back to the assigned discrete code. The 7600 code sets off a very loud, very annoying alarm in many terminal facilities and that doesn't help anybody. The discrete code also tracks better.

Can you refer to the place in the AIM where you are supposed to squawk lost comms for only a minute then swap back? Switching back to the original code would suggest that you figured out the problem and they are likely to spend a few minutes retrying to talk to you.. I'm sure they have a button that makes the noise go away and the squawk code is just a number. 7600 doesn't track any different than 4250 on the screen other than one shows up red because there is a problem.
Am I misunderstanding the published lost comms procedure or are you suggesting there is a better, unpublished, way?

Well, maybe. Practically speaking, in the real world, what are the most likely causes of lost comm?

You're right. I'm sure one-way communication loss has happened before though, probably user error.

 

[roncachamp]

Can you refer to the place in the AIM where you are supposed to squawk lost comms for only a minute then swap back?

It's not in the AIM.

Switching back to the original code would suggest that you figured out the problem and they are likely to spend a few minutes retrying to talk to you..

They're going to attempt contact periodically anyway.

I'm sure they have a button that makes the noise go away and the squawk code is just a number.

Yup. It silences the alarm until the next time there's a hit on an applicable code. That's going to be the next sweep of the radar on your aircraft because you're still squawking 7600.

7600 doesn't track any different than 4250 on the screen other than one shows up red because there is a problem.

The code that is assigned to your flight plan information tracks you better than any other code because it's assigned to you.

Am I misunderstanding the published lost comms procedure or are you suggesting there is a better, unpublished, way?

I'm saying there's a better, unpublished way.

I'm sure one-way communication loss has happened before though, probably user error.

Two-way radio communications is the ability to send and receive via radio. Loss of either one is two-way radio communications failure.

 

[denverpilot]

What's the potential for confusion? ATC will know you lost comms the same way you did; there'll be no response. I advocate going to 7600 for no more than a minute then going back to the assigned discrete code. The 7600 code sets off a very loud, very annoying alarm in many terminal facilities and that doesn't help anybody. The discrete code also tracks better.

Thought there were some radar installations that take 90 seconds for a full once-around but not finding a reference to it now. Center stuff, not TRACON stuff. But anyway... 60 seconds is probably a little short in a non-terminal environment.

Since the thread is about the terminal environment, probably doesn't doesn't matter, depending on coverage.

Yup. It silences the alarm until the next time there's a hit on an applicable code. That's going to be the next sweep of the radar on your aircraft because you're still squawking 7600.

That's some incredibly brain dead software.

 

[roncachamp]

Thought there were some radar installations that take 90 seconds for a full once-around but not finding a reference to it now. Center stuff, not TRACON stuff. But anyway... 60 seconds is probably a little short in a non-terminal environment.

Since the thread is about the terminal environment, probably doesn't doesn't matter, depending on coverage.

ARSRs rotate about 5 RPM.

That's some incredibly brain dead software.

Perhaps. Suppose someone else starts squawking one of the applicable codes while the system has been silenced.

 

[denverpilot]

Perhaps. Suppose someone else starts squawking one of the applicable codes while the system has been silenced.

Look at the location and see how far away from the silenced one it is? If outside the expected straight line distance traveled by the aircraft in the timeframe since the last hit, alert again. Must be somebody else.

 

[roncachamp]

Look at the location and see how far away from the silenced one it is? If outside the expected straight line distance traveled by the aircraft in the timeframe since the last hit, alert again. Must be somebody else.

If that was considered sufficient there would be no reason for the aural alarm at all.

 

[denverpilot]

If that was considered sufficient there would be no reason for the aural alarm at all.

I didn't say to not play the initial "get your attention" alarm. I was only referring to the silliness of a follow up alarm once your attention is already there.

I suppose a corner case would be another aircraft popping up ALSO squawking 7600 inside that "silence ring" calculated around the first one, but that's likely to be close enough that the snitch alarm would cover that one. Or the software could simply count. One aircraft silenced, inside this ring, second shows up, play the alarm again.

With proper analysis of the problem, there's no need to re-alarm on already known things every time the radar antenna goes roundy-round.