Of course you can manoeuvre anyway you like to get onto the missed approach track
I think the post above this one shows this to be less than trivial in some cases 
The turn you drew is much tighter than Rate 1 and would be damn tight to be doing in IMC. Of course one can do 30-45-60 turns in IMC (with practice) but it’s a great way to lose control and I wonder if people would actually do that in reality.
FlawlessFlare wrote:
Careful, if you for example decide to turn right from the base in your diagram,
I did write “the important thing is that you turn towards the runway when you lose visual references.” so my comment about "you can manoeuvre anyway you like was intented to apply when you are over the runway.
Peter wrote:
The turn you drew is much tighter than Rate 1 and would be damn tight to be doing in IMC. Of course one can do 30-45-60 turns in IMC (with practice) but it’s a great way to lose control and I wonder if people would actually do that in reality.
Obviously (I thought) the diagram wasn’t intended to depict actual tracks but principles. You need to stay within the circling area and that should be possible with rate 1 turns.
Oh, I see now. I skipped the part where it says “below MDA/H” and “above MDA/H”.
But now that I finished the design approach procedure chapter I’m very curious how do you intercept the missed approah proc track.
For example
At LOWI this older Jepp chart says that I should have the missed approach point visually identified. Which is weird because I’m executing a missed approach because I can’t see. Also, how realistic is a 0.9 radius circle in IMC ???
Interesting thread.
I wonder if procedures are designed to have the obstacle clearance for a 360 degree Rate 1 turn to the original missed approach procedure? The problem is that you could lose VMC anywhere after the original break to the right.
It might explain some of the very high minima we see, which most people thought were driven by climb performance to the missed approach procedure for the normal IAP.
Peter wrote:
I wonder if procedures are designed to have the obstacle clearance for a 360 degree Rate 1 turn to the original missed approach procedure?
The circling area extends (for approach category A aircraft) to a distance of 1.68 NM from every point of the runway. At maximum permitted speed (100 kt), the radius of a rate 1 turn is ≈0.55 NM. So you would have a good chance to manoeuvre onto the final approach track while keeping inside the circling area. The important thing is to have a feeling at all times for the direction to the runway and the approximate time/distance to reach it.
JoeMama_the_Pilot wrote:
At LOWI this older Jepp chart says that I should have the missed approach point visually identified.
I think you misread what the plate says. It does not say that you should have the missed approach point visually identified. It says that you have established effective external visual reference at that point. In other words, you can see enough to launch the visual approach procedure and do not have to go missed.
In the noughties before EIKN got ILS and DME, Ryanair had a penchant in the Dublin jet assessments for the crew to fly the EIKN NDB RWY 27 (today it is 26 due to magnetic shift) C-T-L 08. Lots of opportunity for the crew to brief and rehearse bottom lines in the event they need to go missed. Turbulence was probably on a lusty setting, runway probably wet, and there was probably an abnormal to test capacity.
LDA around 2,000m at the time, and if OEI, a Flaps 15 approach with no thrust reversers.
I believe Ryanair still carries out jet assessments, many UK airlines have decided to dispense with them.
Not sure how many crew used to space shuttle runways would stand up to a OEI raw NDB C-T-L to a performance landing.
