Separate Missed Approach Flightplan

We’ve all been there. You’re 100 feet from the ground and about to land after a nice leisurely flight when, suddenly, a gust of wind nearly tips your plane over. You’re now unstable and off the centerline and there is no time to correct it. You initiate a go around. But…where to go next?

Okay, maybe this example doesn’t apply to everyone, but you get the point. Not every approach is perfect, and even when some are, you are unable to land because of traffic. For those following charts, the answer of what to do next is simple: follow the missed approach procedure. But odds are you haven’t put this into your flightplan yet, because you don’t want NAV to follow it or you want an accurate ETE to Destination or whatever the reason may be. This is where my proposal comes in.

Whether or not you follow charts, having some sort of plan after a missed approach or go-around can be vital, especially in airports with tight terrain. My idea is that somewhere, either on the APPR/NAV button as a third option or somewhere else in the NAV menu, there is an option to pre-set and subsequently follow (when necessary) a missed approach path, one that doesn’t register as your normal flightplan, but can be activated and followed separate from it. It is always a pain trying to input waypoints as I’m in the process of a go around.

I understand that with Radar ATC this may not be necessary, but Radar (or ATC at all) is not always there. This could be helpful, and could even be implemented with ATC as the integration of published procedures grows. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks for reading and for your input!

Not sure a whole nother flight plan is necessary. Just perform a visual approach and adjust as necessary. Or, get back on your original flight plan if autopilot doesnt send you in loops.

1 Like

There isn’t really a need for it as a majority of airport charts say to climb to XYZ altitude and then enter downwind and land again.

2 Likes

It’s a great idea I was thinking of something like that too

2 Likes

Actually, no they don’t. Many have a fix to fly to, and the majority of those have multiple fixes.

2 Likes

Many also just have a maintain runway heading and contact ATC or “circle to land”

2 Likes

I have yet to see that (or remember seeing that) at any commercial airport. I just flew into Paro, which sparked this idea because the missed approach path is intricate and exact and begins before the runway threshold so it would be helpful here, but many other places also.

2 Likes

Yea this would be a great thing! I don’t understand why many people are against this, thousands of airports have go around procedures that aren’t just straight ahead.

2 Likes

Or just a secondary flightplan for alternates/ runway change
I’ll try and find a vote to clear

1 Like

Yeah that is also a great application for it.

1 Like

I actually like this idea. Every time that I’ve had to go around, especially in a busy airspace, I find it distracting and stressful to throw together some waypoints. I think this would be really helpful, especially for airports that are surrounded by mountains or what not. It’s a yes from me.

2 Likes

Exactly! There are so many situations where it can do some good, and quite honestly, I see no negative sides to it. But I’m slightly biased.

1 Like

Because it doesn’t seem logical to create a whole new flight plan just to get yourself back on course for the runway, when you can just hand fly the bird back around, and use your eyes to adjust your plane as necessary, even if it means going around multiple times before you can land.

What you just described is exactly what is done in real life. It is a way to guarantee terrain avoidance, (real-world) traffic avoidance, and many other things. And where is the issue in this? If you don’t want to use it, don’t put another flightplan in. You aren’t required to make a new flightplan and, if you do it, it can be done at any point during your flight when you would just be killing time anyway.

But, if you are flying in IMC conditions on an IMC approach, I’m not going to use my eyes. I’ve had issues with the workload of configuring for a go around as well as following the missed approach procedure. There is a reason we have 2 pilots in the real world, this would assist with taking the load off one person. Not only that, but this is parallel to how they do it in real life, the missed approach is pre-installed into the FMC. I’m not going to settle for doing it by eyes if that’s not how its done. What’s the point in holding Infinite Flight back from implementing authentic procedures and workflows in aircraft?

1 Like

Exactly. The point of a flightplan and procedures is to do what you’re doing only on instruments, without having to make adjustments with your eyes. I have never heard of someone making an IFR flightplan, flying an IFR approach, then visually looping back to their IFR flightplan. Which is why I think this feature would be important, as it reduces the need for that.