NORDO Missed Approaches

[David Walsh 811659]

Hey team,

 

Today whilst working SOCAL Approach, I had a NORDO B767 go missed off Rwy 25L. He completed the published miss approach procedure and held over CATLY at 2,000. The hold at CATLY has an inbound course of 210 and the fix is 12.8nm SW of LAX. Due to the speed of the aircraft, the outbound leg of the hold caused the aircraft to come within 3 miles (about 2.4nm) of the extended centrelines of Rwys 7R/L and 6R/L, at about 7nm West LAX. In order to launch departures, I would have needed vertical sep e.g departures crossing 3,000' prior to about 4nm, which may or may not be possible due performance.

 

What are my options for succeeding arrivals and departures?

 

I cannot protect the missed approach area on the Runway 25L approach because I already have someone in it that I cannot talk to. Therefore I would have to make other missed approach arrangements, correct? Given the Tower is aware of the aircraft out there, would they [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign new missed approach instructions based on the traffic or would I, as Approach, before giving any 25L arrivals shout to Tower? I could be guaranteed 3 miles between aircraft H270 (or greater to the North) off the 25s or 24s against the holding aircraft.

 

In the case of departures, as with missed approaches, would -all- departures need to be turned to a heading of 270 or greater? Would it be good operating practice to launch departures, on say a heading of H250, once the holding aircraft was tracking inbound to the hold on the 210 heading? You would have 3 miles and increasing until you got vertical, but once the holding aircraft turned outbound of the hold, the distance would be decreasing again. It would be easier for southbound departures to get a H250 until vertical than it would be to go Northwest first and then south. Would I have to consider any Lost Comms procedures for the DPs if the DPs were to turn an aircraft south?

 

Any thoughts are welcome.

[Steven Perry]

First and foremost, NORDO doesn't happen on VATSIM unless it is handled in the same way an emergency is... getting controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ent prior to it happening. Don't everyone go NORDO to try this theory out.

 

You must protect the hold pattern airspace (which is bigger than the holding pattern) and any route the plane would take to try another approach at the original airport and any route the plane would use to get to the filed alternate.

 

Yuck.

 

In all likelihood you lost his mode C validation because you dropped the track and sent to tower (unless tower tracks?). So, you must protect SFC-020. No tunneling under.

 

You have no radar contact with departures when tower is issuing departure instructions, so non-radar rules apply.

 

Successive approaches (even ones already on the approach and with tower) must be given alternate MAPs. Again, non-radar applies.

 

I'm [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming the hold is outside of tower's airspace and tower cannot apply visual separation without pilot involvement.

 

If the filed alternate is to the north, across all your departures and MAPs, traffic has to stop.

 

You have three saving graces:

1. If it's VMC and the pilots of your departures have amazing eye sight, point out the traffic when the aircraft is on the runway and apply pilot visual sep.

2. If it's VMC you can do your best to get the planes over/around the NORDO and if the NORDO does something unexpected to put the two IFRs in conflict, you might have time to radar ID the departure and establish lateral radar sep, you might have time to apply pilot visual sep in the air, or if that's too many "mights" even IFRs are see-and-avoid in VMC. Doesn't do much to save your skin but with the current "run it like a business" mentality I'm sure your sups and managers would applaud this approach. Safety was never compromised.

3. A B767 has how many radios? 3 VHF, probably 2 HF, 2+ VOR (voice receive), an ADF or two (voice receive), hopefully a handheld transceiver, ACARS, a bunch of air-phones on the backs of seats, plus several hundred personal cell phones. I think they'll find some way of getting in touch before testing out the TCAS away from the protected hold pattern.

[Garry Morris 920567]

hehe

 

*ring ring* Little old lady in First Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]: "Stewardess, could you be a dear and tell the pilots to turn left heading 090, climb and maintain 5000, and expect vectors for ILS approach 25L? Thank you."

[Stephen Sculley-Beaman]

hehe

 

*ring ring* Little old lady in First Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]: "Stewardess, could you be a dear and tell the pilots to turn left heading 090, climb and maintain 5000, and expect vectors for ILS approach 25L? Thank you."

 

LOL

[Matt Bromback]

Let me clarify some things about holding patterns to make sure were all on the same page...

 

I looked up the ILS 25L as I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]umed this was the approach that the plane went missed on...It does show CATLY as the intersection you need to hold over at 12.8NM away from LAX so I im pretty sure I got the right one here.

 

The FAAs instrument flying handbook state that any holding aircraft holding below 6000MSL max speed is 200kts. The hold is published at 2000ft so this rule applies for this situation. So if the pilot was coming within 3 nm of your departure runways that would imply he was at least 10nm away from the fix which to my conclusion he was probably doing a little faster then 200kts. Also since no DME is published in the hold the standard 1-minute holding pattern applies...

 

In a no-wind condition doing 200kts would give you approx 3.3NM legs which would put you a lot closer to the holding fix itself and keep aircraft away from the departures area. I hope this clears up some of the facts around holding patterns in missed comms scenarios as this might be something to consider in this event as well.

 

Personally in the future I would of posted this in the ZLA forums since those guys know their airspace much better then the general community Perhaps you already have and you were asking for some opinions on the subject

 

Take care!!!

[Steven Perry]

The FAA has hold pattern templates that define the protected hold pattern airspace. Use these in stead of time-speed-distance calculations.

 

If you want to be correct about it, the guys at SOCAL might know which template applies here and can give you the protected distance at right angles to the hold radial. [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming the next aircraft is not dead on one of those 4 bearings, you would pick the highest mileage for the quadrant the plane is coming from to formulate your crossing retriction.

 

For an aircraft approaching [edit: typo] the inbound leg from the left and behind.... if you have 15 miles on the major side of the holding pattern (behind the holding plane overtop the fix) and 5 miles on the non-holding side (left side of the holding plane overtop the fix in a standard pattern), the crossing restriction would be at 15 miles.

 

But I don't have these templates and if I did I wouldn't know which holds get which templates, so time-speed distance calcs might have to do it. In which case, don't forget to add the radius of the turns at the ends of the oval. [http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/circling_with_precision_197445-1.html] Plus 5 miles on all sides seems to be the general buffer given (see FAAO 7110.65 6-5-3 figures 6-5-2 and 6-5-3).

Edited June 29, 2008 at 05:59 PM by Guest

[Jason Dambrosio 1002873]

You have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about!

 

 

FOR Easier information on what this Guy was talking about look in your Far and Aim if you have the 2008 edition it is on page 749

[Steven Perry]

You have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about!

 

 

FOR Easier information on what this Guy was talking about look in your Far and Aim if you have the 2008 edition it is on page 749

 

In case there is some misunderstanding, my references to templates and time-speed-distance calcs are for controllers' reference. Templates are, in my understanding, the governing real world solution. In my time on VATSIM I've never seen one applied, so if it is necessary, I suggested using time and speed to arrive at distance plus a margin (deduced from those two figures). I think this would fall under the "best judgment." But even the best of judgment doesn't forgive ignorance. So...

 

Can you give us a reference that we can all look up? I apparently don't have the same edition of the FAR AIM you have (different publishers, different page numbers).

 

Perhaps a chapter-section-paragraph? http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf

 

I don't hesitate to admit when I'm wrong. But I'd like to learn so I don't make the same mistake twice. It's not often I go into the AIM since order 7110.65 usually covers all that I'm concerned about.

[Jim Johnson 814050]

First and foremost, NORDO doesn't happen on VATSIM unless it is handled in the same way an emergency is... getting controller [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ent prior to it happening.

 

Just to clarify one thing per the Code of Conduct... you may declare and emergency or simulate a NORDO without asking permission, BUT if asked to discontinue by the controller, you must comply or continue offline.

[Matt Bromback]

You have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about!

 

 

FOR Easier information on what this Guy was talking about look in your Far and Aim if you have the 2008 edition it is on page 749

 

In case there is some misunderstanding, my references to templates and time-speed-distance calcs are for controllers' reference. Templates are, in my understanding, the governing real world solution. In my time on VATSIM I've never seen one applied, so if it is necessary, I suggested using time and speed to arrive at distance plus a margin (deduced from those two figures). I think this would fall under the "best judgment." But even the best of judgment doesn't forgive ignorance. So...

 

Can you give us a reference that we can all look up? I apparently don't have the same edition of the FAR AIM you have (different publishers, different page numbers).

 

Perhaps a chapter-section-paragraph? http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf

 

I don't hesitate to admit when I'm wrong. But I'd like to learn so I don't make the same mistake twice. It's not often I go into the AIM since order 7110.65 usually covers all that I'm concerned about.

 

Refer to 5-4-20 to the link you provided, the earlier link that you provided describes in a way to maintain circling minimums to an airfield... Not really anything related to holding procedures..If you want to reference the part on holding altitudes and speeds refer to section 5-3-7

 

Hope this helps!

[Steven Perry]

Just to clarify one thing per the Code of Conduct... you may declare and emergency or simulate a NORDO without asking permission, BUT if asked to discontinue by the controller, you must comply or continue offline.

 

Woops.

 

Refer to 5-4-20 to the link you provided, the earlier link that you provided describes in a way to maintain circling minimums to an airfield... Not really anything related to holding procedures..If you want to reference the part on holding altitudes and speeds refer to section 5-3-7

 

Hope this helps!

 

My first link about circling gave the formula for the radius of a turn as a function of bank angle and speed (and further down by a chart including standard rate). I intended it to be used in calculating the hold pattern airspace.

 

I was hoping for an AIM reference describing ATC separation standards or techniques for holds.

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

Personally in the future I would of posted this in the ZLA forums since those guys know their airspace much better then the general community

 

David Walsh has been controlling at ZLA since the late 1990's, so I think that the question had more to do with procedures via the .65 and thus a post to the US forums.

[Matt Bromback]

Personally in the future I would of posted this in the ZLA forums since those guys know their airspace much better then the general community

 

David Walsh has been controlling at ZLA since the late 1990's, so I think that the question had more to do with procedures via the .65 and thus a post to the US forums.

 

Well then in my opinion I would vote pilot error on this occasion because the protected holding area should not conflict with the departure corridor...

 

Just my 2 cents!

[Jason Dambrosio 1002873]

Personally in the future I would of posted this in the ZLA forums since those guys know their airspace much better then the general community

 

David Walsh has been controlling at ZLA since the late 1990's, so I think that the question had more to do with procedures via the .65 and thus a post to the US forums.

 

Well then in my opinion I would vote pilot error on this occasion because the protected holding area should not conflict with the departure corridor...

 

Just my 2 cents!

 

 

 

Agreed !!!!!!!

[Steven Perry]

Well then in my opinion I would vote pilot error on this occasion because the protected holding area should not conflict with the departure corridor...

 

Just my 2 cents!

 

I must be reading a different thread. Published MAPs are predefined. A great many of the MAPs I had become familiar with in my flying time were the reciprocal runways LOMs. This one I flew many times. http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0807/00646V21.PDF

 

The hold fix is only 5.1 miles out, straight down the barrel and very much in the departure corridor.

 

I guess I missed the original question. Did this get posted to ZLA? Link?

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

First of all, the example you mention DW, is the absolute only time (as far as I'm aware) that the MAP is actually used at LAX. This happens so very rarely, where the aircraft is NORDO in that phase of flight (heck...the frequencies are right on chart, so really the only time this should happen is with a radio failure) that I'm sure it's really a non-issue. Non-NORDO missed approaches are given a heading before being sent back to Socal for resequencing.

 

But in any event, even when it does happen, the aircraft will hold using the LAX 210 radial as the inbound leg to CATLY, with right hand turns. The a/c in holding could go as far as 8 miles from CATLY and the departure controller would still have 3 miles between that aircraft and a departure issued runway heading. If flown at the proper speed and using 1' legs, I really can't see the plane venturing more than 3.5 miles from CATLY, maybe 4 for good measure. The only aircraft who might be in conflict would be the LAXX5's on the 220 heading. I'm pretty certain even the 235 heading on the LOOP would clear the protected airspace for the holding pattern. That's just by looking at it very quickly though. Runway heading should solve any issues with the pattern.

[Bo Gercke 845743]

I don't know why some want to make this all so complicated. Where you guys are finding the time to run math calculations while controlling is something that you've got to show me.

 

So let's look at your questions:

 

What are my options for succeeding arrivals and departures?

 

Hold all of your departures until Mr. NORDO is out of your departure corridor. Protect the NORDO aircraft with a standard 1000, and 3 bubble. Arrivals arrive, and if they miss out, tell the arriving aircraft that there is traffic in the departure corridor, SHOULD HE MISS OUT.

 

I cannot protect the missed approach area on the Runway 25L approach because I already have someone in it that I cannot talk to.

Says who? VFR, or IFR? VFR: See and be seen. Let the pilot help you out. Aside from that, you're not protecting the missed approach area, (In fact, I've never even heard that term) you're protecting the NORDO aircraft. If you're IFR, and you have a miss, you just figure it out. Something will be available to you, and most likely, anything that you do would be significantly better than doing nothing. Not everything is in writing, and sometimes you are actually required to engage your brain and solve a problem, instead of expecting a policy or procedure to solve it for you.

 

Therefore I would have to make other missed approach arrangements, correct? Given the Tower is aware of the aircraft out there, would they [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ign new missed approach instructions based on the traffic or would I, as Approach, before giving any 25L arrivals shout to Tower?

 

I can be fairly confident that by the time you are getting ready to issue new missed approach instructions, the NORDO aircraft will have vacated the departure corridor. He needs to get on deck. You should be thinking about the guy 5 airplanes behind the one that you're talking to, and trying to build a hole for this NORDO aircraft to get into the sequence into 24/25. Tower cannot issue new missed approach instructions unless the radar controller coordinates it.

 

Departures:

 

Hold them. End of story.

[Wayne Conrad 989233]

I can't answer the original question. Instead, I've got questions for the pilot.

 

Was the field in visual conditions at the time? If so, he should have entered the pattern, looked for "light gun signals" (by PM) and landed, rather than gone missed. I have to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume that the field was not in visual conditions, since he went missed.

 

My other question is, [Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming IMC, why enter the hold? There are only two good things in the pilot's tool box: Try another approach at this airport, or divert to the alternate. Neither of those are going to happen spinning around in the hold. An approach at this airport is going to happen by picking an approach that can be accomplished pilot nav, finding a feeder or IAF for it, figuring out how to get there safely, and going there. The only reason to be in the hold is if you need time to look that up. Single pilot IFR in a jet, that may have been what was going on: Scrambling for charts trying to figure out which one could be flown pilot nav and figuring out how to get there from that screwy holding fix that isn't on any airway.

 

Or, the pilot was in the galley looking for a beer and the FMC was doing it. No fault there, either. If you don't have beer, what's the point of it all?

 

Anyhow, from a pilot's point of view, that's what I'm curious about.

 

(Edited to add); Oh, nice. Looks like all of the LAX ILS approaches can be flown pilot nav. Sweet!

 

Ok, thinking this out, you need to climb to the MSA or OROCA before leaving the holding fix so that you can safely get to the feeder or IAF of your approach. Where would it be safest for you to do that? Most likely, in the hold itself. So, there probably is a good reason to be in the hold for at least a turn. Just not a great reason to linger there.

[Dennis Whitley 952478]

The published missed approach, as in most all published procedures, is basically for lost communications. That way, the controller can "expect" what the pilot will do in the event of lost contact. In reality, a controller would have most likely spun him around back into the mix, and vectored him for another approach instead of burning up fuel.

 

However, since probably the sky wasn't full, and you were in contact, the above would apply. If the sky were full, and you saw the hold in conflict with runway, and you were in contact, you could have sent him to XXX and had him hold at any altitude, and x NM legs inbound to the fix.

 

That said, if the pilot was flying the proper holding speed, the holding pattern is designed to accommodate the maneuver. You could have asked him to slow to HP speed. (The rate of turn is directly proportional to the speed)

[Wayne Conrad 989233]

The published missed approach, as in most all published procedures, is basically for lost communications.

 

Dennis, You missed this in the thread title:

 

NORDO Missed Approaches