Talk:Missed approach point

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Removal of merge template and other mods[edit]

I removed the merge suggestion as I don't think it's appropriate (see discussion on Talk:Go-around). I also made some other changes. Comments welcome. BTW, I think VDP also needs to be added, possibly as a section in this article. Maybe also recent changes to 'runway sighting' criteria. Crum375 12:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Visual Descent Point" and Usage of "(Non-)Precision Approach"[edit]

I would like to start a discussion with whoever is interested about whether the section describing the VDP deserves to be edited. The sentence I am concerned about is this one:

"Conversely, if the runway is visible at the VDP, the pilot may continue descent, following a standard descent angle to the runway, while being assured terrain and obstacle clearance."

I would like to know what reference the author of this article used to make this statement. I can't find this claim in the AIM or other FAA sources and I don't think it is always true. Sometimes this is true (for example if the path from the VDP to the runway coincides with a visual glideslope indicator) but in other situations I believe an obstacle could be in this path. This is why you must always maintain visual conditions when below the MDA on a non-precision approach.

If I were an expert in this area I would just go ahead and edit the page ... but I don't consider myself an expert.

~Paul Mennen 13 March 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.24.119 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain you're right, that visual descent points do not necessarily guarantee obstacle clearance on a visual glidepath. As far as I am aware, TERPS criteria only promise that the volume above a steeper 20:1 sloped plane from 200 ft. before the threshold out to a published VDP will not be penetrated by terrain/obstructions. Obstructions may still penetrate the space above a typical 34:1 (3°) glidepath, in which case the required visibility is bumped up to 1 SM from what would otherwise be 3/4 SM.

I believe the distinction is illustrated on IAP charts' profile views through the use of a rather subtle shaded grey triangle on the GS from the VDP down to the threshold. Without that triangle, no 34:1 clearance is guaranteed. This confusion has even caused at least one accident I've read, an aircraft on a visual GS on a night approach into Saratoga Springs flew right into tall trees extending into a 3° glidepath. Local flyers were all aware that a steep approach was required to that specific runway, but a VDP was still published for the IFR approach (w/o the grey triangle, though).

Another problem with the article is that it differentiates between "precision" and "non-precision approaches"; whereas, whether the approach has an MDA or a DA and, consequently, the MAP, do not depend on whether the approach is in the precision category at all. Instead, it is based on whether the approach is an APV (Approach Procedure with Vertical guidance). Examples of non-precision APVs include RNAV or RNP (GPS approaches) with LPV or LNAV/VNAV minima: These are non-precision but have relatively lower minima and use decision altitudes instead of minimum descent altitudes. It's a subtle matter, and APVs, for all intents and purposes, have the characteristics precision approaches, except in regulatory status. Something to do with the FAA reconciling with ICAO definitions/guidelines...

--Technotom2001 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missed approach point. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090927115927/http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/INDEX.HTM to http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]