Missed Approach
Missed Approach
Description
When, for any reason, it is judged that an approach or landing cannot be continued to a successful landing, a missed approach or go-around shall be flown.
Reasons for discontinuing an approach or landing may include the following:
- The required visual references have not been established by the Decision Altitude/Height (DA/DH) or Minimum Descent Altitude/Height (MDA/MDH) or is acquired but is subsequently lost;
- The approach or landing is, or has become unstabilised;
- The aircraft is not positioned so as to allow a controlled touchdown within the designated runway touchdown zone with a consequent risk of aircraft damage with or without a Runway Excursion if the attempt is continued;
- The runway is obstructed;
- Landing clearance has not been received or is issued and later cancelled;
- A go-around is being flown for training purposes with ATC approval.
Missed Approach Procedure
A missed approach procedure is the procedure to be followed if an approach cannot be continued. It specifies a point where the missed approach begins, and a point or an altitude/height where it ends. (ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS)
A missed approach procedure is specified for all airfield and runway Precision Approach and Non-Precision Approach procedures. The missed approach procedure takes into account deconfliction from ground obstacles and from other air traffic flying instrument procedures in the airfield vicinity. Only one primary missed approach procedure is established for each instrument approach procedure. However, alternate missed approach procedures may also be published. Alternate procedures are normally used when the navigation aid on which the primary approach is predicated becomes inoperative.
Usually a go-around from an instrument approach should follow the specified missed approach procedure unless otherwise instructed by air traffic control or if safety reasons dictate otherwise.
If a missed approach is initiated below the DA/H in precision approach procedures, or beyond the missed approach point (MAPt) or below MDA/H in non-precision approach procedures pilots must consider if they can still safely follow the published missed approach or if they require a special routing e.g. in case of an engine failure during go-around (e.g. by birdstrike) when, depending on aircraft performance, it may be necessary to follow special engine failure turn procedures or using visual references only.
If a missed approach is initiated before arriving at the missed approach point (MAPt), it is important that pilots proceed to the MAPt (or to the middle marker fix or specified DME distance for precision approach procedures) and then follow the missed approach procedure in order to remain within the protected airspace. The MAPt may be overflown at an altitude/height greater than that required by the procedure; but in the case of a missed approach with a turn, the turn must not take place before the MAPt, unless otherwise specified in the procedure.
The MAPt in a procedure is defined by:
- the point of intersection of an electronic glide path with the applicable DA/H in precision approaches; or,
- a navigation facility, a fix, or a specified distance from the final approach fix in non-precision approaches.
A visual go around may be made after an unsuccessful visual approach if no published missed approach is available.
A go-around is often unexpected and places special demands on the pilots, who may not often have an opportunity to practice this procedure other then in the simulator. Some aspects of the go-around which deserve special study are:
- Flying a manual go-around;
- Go-around from low airspeed and/or low thrust;
- The transition to instrument flying;
- Monitoring and Crew coordination during go-around initiation;
- Awareness of initial level-off altitude vs pitch attitude and thrust setting;
- Awareness of remaining fuel and options available.
Often, if an emergency or abnormal situation develops during the final stages of an approach, it is likely that the approach will be continued to land. However, in some cases, such as a configuration issue (flaps or gear position), performing a missed approach, completing the appropriate drills and checklists to prepare for a non-standard approach and then conducting a second approach to a landing or diverting to a more suitable airfield might be the more prudent course of action.
Accidents and Incidents
The following events occurred during missed approach or involved a missed approach:
On 4 April 2022 an ATR 72-600 inbound to Hiva-Oa-Atuona in challenging but not unexpected conditions of terrain-induced turbulence encountered a sudden downdraft close to touchdown. The pilot monitoring made an unannounced pitch-up input to check descent. This was not recognised by the pilot flying who reversed the input, and a pitch disconnect resulted. A bounced runway contact was followed by a go-around and visual circuit to a successful landing on the opposite direction runway. Significant deficiencies were found in the provision of meteorological service at both Hiva-Oa-Atuona and many other airports in French Polynesia.
On 22 December 2022, a De Havilland DHC8-100 came within less than 300 feet of terrain on final approach to Svolvær in clouds as its crew responded to an unexpected but valid EGPWS warning of terrain proximity. The go-around was completed, and the crew decided to return to the departure airport Bodø, which was accomplished without further event. An incorrect altimeter setting had resulted in the approach being flown 700 feet below the required profile.
On 26 October 2023, a De Havilland DHC8-100 flight crew mismanaged an approach to Val-d’Or and narrowly avoided controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). The experienced captain made an incorrect entry into the flight management system (FMS) and followed this with ineffective attempts to correct the error. At the same time, the inexperienced first officer acting as pilot flying (PF) continued an excessively steep off-track descent without visual reference until the approach was discontinued when terrain proximity alerts were activated. The aircraft operator subsequently made significant changes to its flight crew training and operating procedures.
On 10 November 2023, an Airbus A320 inbound to Delhi going around from an approach to Runway 29L came into lost required separation with a Boeing 787-8 that had just taken off from the closely spaced parallel Runway 29R. The aircraft were on two different radio frequencies. Two successive TCAS RAs occurred and were followed, which prevented a collision. Prior to that point, both aircraft had been flown in accordance with their clearances. The conflict occurred because the aircraft flight paths as cleared created a collision risk. Inadequacies in related air traffic control procedures and practices and in controller performance and support were assessed as causal.
On 8 February 2024, a Boeing 737-900ER taking off from Runway 14 at Nassau in accordance with its clearance was instructed to reject its takeoff at high speed. This happened when the controller recognised that a Bombardier CRJ200, which had been on final approach to land on intersecting Runway 10 had begun a go-around from low level after not receiving a landing clearance. The report says it appears the tower controller may have become overwhelmed during complex operations when there was no tower supervisor to ensure coordinated tower and approach control functions, due to inadequate manning.
Further Reading
- ICAO Annex 6 (Aircraft Operations)
- ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS)
- IR-OPS CAT.OP.MPA.110 & 120 & CAT.POL.A.245
- IR-OPS AMC3&4 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Aerodrome operating minima
- EU-OPS
- FAA Information for Operators 17009: Committed-to-Stop Point on Landings, July 2017
EUROCONTROL, European Regions Airline Association, and Flight Safety Foundation
Flight Safety Foundation
- ALAR Briefing Note 6.1 — Being Prepared to Go Around
- ALAR Briefing Note 6.2 — Manual Go-around
- ALAR Briefing Note 6.4 — Bounce Recovery — Rejected Landing
- Go-Around Decision-Making and Execution Project, Tzvetomir Blajev, Capt William Curtis (Flight Safety Foundation), March 2017
The Flight Safety Foundation ALAR Toolkit provides useful training information and guides to best practice. Copies of the FSF ALAR Toolkit may be ordered from the Flight Safety Foundation ALAR website.
Flight Data Services Case Studies
Go-Around Safety Forum
- Go-Around Safety Forum (GASF), Brussels 2013: Findings and Conclusions
- "Do you really understand how your trim works?" - Captain Alex Fisher
Airbus Descent Management Briefing Notes
EASA
