Missed approach wording 2

28.10.2004

Submission:

Regarding the two versions, I would have initially favoured the first wording however, in a similar case, it was found that after consultation with the pilots flying the procedure a wording similar to the second case was preferred. It was felt that the requirement to turn the aircraft could be lost with "target fixation" on the target altitude providing the potential for a late turn. A suggestion would be

At MAPT climb on 050° to 1100 ft, climbing to 2500 ft turn left track 307° to intercept RE-340 to enter ZZZ holding pattern at 2500 ft or as directed by ATC.

The wording selected will be dependent largely on the obstacle environment, if the turn is as a result of an obstacle cleared in the initial missed approach segment then a late turn is not critical, however if the turn is intended to avoid an obstacle then it may be more important to emphasise the turning altitude.

As to the use of "heading" instead of "track" it should be clear that the designer can only protect against a known track. Particularly in the case of a circling approach in high winds there may be a significant deviation between the aircraft heading and its track. By specifying track it allows the pilot to determine a suitable heading to approximate the intended track given that on the approach itself wind effect will be apparent from the aircraft instruments and the actual wind at the aerodrome will probably have been passed.

Raymond Martin - Ireland