Where is the Missed Approach Point?

we're just pulling it out of our collective asses. Oh, wait, no we're not. You're deducing your number, we're taking right off the plate. View attachment 92770

what if you're slightly below glide path but within the scale? Slightly above? Nobody is perfectly on glide path. Don't go below DA or past the MAP of you don't have runway stuff in sight (and a number of other caveats).
Yeah, you could say I’m doing some ‘deducing.’ It comes from regulatory information. The MAP info in the Airport Sketch box is about the LOC Approach. Here’s an example that illustrates the point. KLVK ILS RWY 25R.
Looking back at my post #30, I was being kinda snarky in the first 2 sentences. My bad and my apologies.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you could say I’m doing some ‘deducing.’ It comes from regulatory information. The MAP info in the Airport Sketch box is about the LOC Approach. Here’s an example that illustrates the point. KLVK ILS RWY 25R.
KLVK is a different situation. The ILS and LOC procedures are published separately because of climb gradient requirements.
 
Yeah. The missed approach is calculated out for obstacle clearance predicated on the missed approach being initiated at the missed approach point. That is predicated on being on Glideslope. That will define a precise geographical location. I think they should put that location on the source document. But they just say DH
They say that because that's what it is. @aterpster can correct me but in both cases, the protected area of the missed assumes (with a margin for error) that you are at MDA at the the non-APV MAP and are on glideslope/path you reach DA. That's why DA's aren't a uniform 200 AGL.
 
They say that because that's what it is. @aterpster can correct me but in both cases, the protected area of the missed assumes (with a margin for error) that you are at MDA at the the non-APV MAP and are on glideslope/path you reach DA. That's why DA's aren't a uniform 200 AGL.

Yeah. Like you said, it’s predicated on being on being on Glideslope. That will be at an exact ‘point.’ I was just saying why not say what that ‘point’ is on the 8260. It would keep that document from being used to making inaccurate arguments about where the missed approach point is.
 
They say that because that's what it is. @aterpster can correct me but in both cases, the protected area of the missed assumes (with a margin for error) that you are at MDA at the the non-APV MAP and are on glideslope/path you reach DA. That's why DA's aren't a uniform 200 AGL.
TERPS Chapter 3 mandates that an ILS CAT I DA be 200 feet, HAT, provided the GS is 3 degrees and there are no obstacles that penetrate the ILS final segment W, X, and Y obstacle clearance surfaces, and that the standard missed approach areas and surfaces be free of obstacles. DAs higher than 200 feet, HAT, can result from obstacle penetrations of the W, X, or Y surfaces, or the missed approach areas. The final segment W surface is particularly critical. Penetrations of the X and Y areas can be mitigated by an extensive analysis. Obstacles can be mitigated in the missed approach area with a climb gradient, except for the first portion of the missed approach that protects for a height loss below DA while transitioning from descent to missed approach configuration.
 
Yeah. Like you said, it’s predicated on being on being on Glideslope. That will be at an exact ‘point.’ I was just saying why not say what that ‘point’ is on the 8260. It would keep that document from being used to making inaccurate arguments about where the missed approach point is.
Such an entry on the 8260-3 would serve no useful purpose. Inaccurate arguments are beyond the purview of procedure design and publication. Inaccurate arguments related to ILS are because of inadequate training or understanding by pilots.
 
I think these two got it right. DA on the glideslope coincides with the MM. The question is testing whether or not you know that fact. The timing table applies only to the LOC approach. I don't happen to think it's a bad question - tricky, maybe - but not bad. Many FAA questions require pulling pieces of knowledge together to formulate the correct answer. This is one of them.

Answer C. It's 4.1 NM from the OM. Answer B is to the end of the runway which is a silly place for an ILS to arrive at 200' AGL. Answer A must be the distance to Taco Bell.

I am confused. Where is everyone getting that the MAP is 4.6 from the OM. It’s 4.1 and that’s what the Chart says. The only place 4.6 shows on the Chart is in the airport inset. That’s to the runway threshold. 309[degree symbol] 4.6 NM from FAF and FAF to MAP 4.6 right above the timing table which is for the LOC Approach. The MAP is the MM. It’s 4.1 from FERMO. MM to threshold is 0.5. That adds up to 4.6. The threshold is not the MAP. If on Glideslope DH will occur at the MM. If you are below and get to DH early, you gotta miss then even though it’s before the MM. If you are above you should give some serious consideration before continuing to DH past the OM.
 
True. MM can’t always be located exactly.
Most of them are gone, or soon to be gone. Remember the regulation of long ago that required adding 50 feet to DA if the MM was inop or the airplane was not equipped to receive it?
 
oh it’s wonky. Obviously there is no map for an ILS. But the question asks for a map. And the plate is for an ILS or loc. And the loc has a faf to map distance of 4.6 nm specified. And the middle answer is 4.6 nm. So pick 4.6 nm. Or don’t. And get. It. Wrong. Whatever.
This just illustrates there is knowledge required to pass a test and knowledge required to actually do things. Oh. And pilots are generally pedantic. Lol
 
In the Air Force, our manuals said that the MA depiction on the plan view shows the missed approach path for the most precise approach on the plate. In this case, since the plate covers an ILS and LOC, the MAP depicted (dashed line) is showing where you go missed on the ILS portion (DA/MM). If this was a LOC only plate, it would depict where the LOC MAP was.

The only way to determine if you arrived at the MAP if you were flying this LOC is by timing and timing alone (lets disregard any RNAV capability for this discussion). Hit the FAF, fly your timing out for your GS and when the time is up, you should have gone 4.6 NM and be over the approach end of the runway. Go missed.

The question is jacked up though, since it asks about the ILS MAP, and like has been hashed out above, that occurs at DA.

Edit: Found the verbiage in the FAA pubs. FAA-H-8083. Chapter 4.
View attachment 92772

So, don't go by the picture in the plan or profile views unless you are looking for the "top line" MAP.

The Jeppesen way:

KRBD ILS or LOC 31.jpg
 
Most of them are gone, or soon to be gone. Remember the regulation of long ago that required adding 50 feet to DA if the MM was inop or the airplane was not equipped to receive it?

Yeah. MM is not on the Inoperative Table anymore. I’m guessing they are all gone
 
Yeah. Neither OM or MM are on the Inoperative Table anymore
I recall locating the LOM for KCRQ in a parking lot 5 miles northeast of the airport. It was expensive to maintain and easy to sabotage. That's why the LOMs at LAX were on the early list. The FAA maintenance people refused to go to the site unless the cops went with them.
 
I recall locating the LOM for KCRQ in a parking lot 5 miles northeast of the airport. It was expensive to maintain and easy to sabotage. That's why the LOMs at LAX were on the early list. The FAA maintenance people refused to go to the site unless the cops went with them.

IBTL. Lol
 
Yeah. Like you said, it’s predicated on being on being on Glideslope. That will be at an exact ‘point.’ I was just saying why not say what that ‘point’ is on the 8260. It would keep that document from being used to making inaccurate arguments about where the missed approach point is.
You really think defining the point horizontally rather than vertically (or anything for that matter) can stop people making inaccurate arguments? :D
 
You really think defining the point horizontally rather than vertically (or anything for that matter) can stop people making inaccurate arguments? :D

I was thinking to add it, not instead of. Like DH, [distance from something]
 
Hopefully the fact that the MM at LAX was at some point in time a rough neighborhood doesn’t turn this discussion into something lockworthy. :)
 
same. Reflecting on it, there were odd questions like this that were annoying - but then maybe the faa wants pilots to actually think rather than just regurgitate info....... nah lol ;)
I never agreed with the FAA's current policy of keeping the question bank secret because pilots would just memorize the question and answer and fail to "understand" the reason for the answer. Most study guides included a discussion of why each answer was correct or incorrect. I learned a lot from this approach. Now you see the poorly worded questions one time and spend an inordinate amount of brain cells choosing the least incorrect answer to a bull **** question and end up missing the answer because the test writer had some other rationale for crediting a different incorrect answer as being less incorrect. I was a flight examiner in the military and I could determine very easily whether someone had an understanding of a concept being asked without looking at his written test score. Passing a multiple choice written test should not be considered having an understanding of anything other than how to pass a multiple choice test.
 
Hopefully the fact that the MM at LAX was at some point in time a rough neighborhood doesn’t turn this discussion into something lockworthy. :)
OM not MM.

some airlines in that area occasionally took a bullet.
 
I was thinking to add it, not instead of. Like DH, [distance from something]

If the vertically-guided MAP was identified by a fix, or unnamed DME fix or an along-track distance (like VDPs), it could really clutter up the chart. Some ILS procedures could then have 3 MAPs - one for a lower DA with a climb gradient, one for a higher DA with no CG, and one for the LOC MAP.

If it was an RNAV procedure, it's possible it could have 5 MAPs charted (LPV and LNAV/VNAV both with and without CG, and one for LNAV). That would be confusing, for (as I see it) no real gain.
 
If the vertically-guided MAP was identified by a fix, or unnamed DME fix or an along-track distance (like VDPs), it could really clutter up the chart. Some ILS procedures could then have 3 MAPs - one for a lower DA with a climb gradient, one for a higher DA with no CG, and one for the LOC MAP.

If it was an RNAV procedure, it's possible it could have 5 MAPs charted (LPV and LNAV/VNAV both with and without CG, and one for LNAV). That would be confusing, for (as I see it) no real gain.

I wasn't meaning Charting it as a fix. Just put it on the 8260/whichever one, where it says
MAP:
ILS: DH

make it ILS: DH (some distance from something) to identify the geographic location of where it is. Yeah, there is no real gain and probably won't happen. It would just reinforce the concept that there is a missed approach POINT, a geographic one. It would make it easier to explain if it was on the form.
 
I wasn't meaning Charting it as a fix. Just put it on the 8260/whichever one, where it says
MAP:
ILS: DH

make it ILS: DH (some distance from something) to identify the geographic location of where it is. Yeah, there is no real gain and probably won't happen. It would just reinforce the concept that there is a missed approach POINT, a geographic one. It would make it easier to explain if it was on the form.

Interesting, for several reasons.
- Explain to who? I'm not sure what you mean. Forms 8260-3 (in my experience) aren't generally used in training or other discussion between pilots. I'd say approximately 98.2% of all pilots don't even know this form exists and have never seen one.
- The purpose of the Form 8260-3 is to instruct charting agencies (i.e. the former "NACO" part of the FAA and Jepp) on what to chart. Virtually everything on that form (with very few exceptions) are then translated to the chart. If they're not going to be charted, there's no reason to put it on the 8260-3. Now, the Form 8260-9 is a data record which has things that are not charted, it could go on there but these are not as readily available to the public.
- There kind of already is what you are asking for, for RNAV procedures anyway. The lowest DA (actually the lowest HAT value) will have the distance to the threshold specified in the Profile section of the form,. line 5. On older forms it's in the "Additional Flight Data" section, but it's still there. "Distance to Threshold from 200 HAT: 0.46 [nm]" is how you read this example:

Current version of the form:
upload_2020-12-29_19-5-58.png

Previous version (different procedure):
upload_2020-12-29_19-8-46.png

Why ILS procedures do not have a similar entry (they do for Cat II ILS procedures, but not Cat I's), I do not know the background on.
 
Interesting, for several reasons.
- Explain to who? I'm not sure what you mean. Forms 8260-3 (in my experience) aren't generally used in training or other discussion between pilots. I'd say approximately 98.2% of all pilots don't even know this form exists and have never seen one.
- The purpose of the Form 8260-3 is to instruct charting agencies (i.e. the former "NACO" part of the FAA and Jepp) on what to chart. Virtually everything on that form (with very few exceptions) are then translated to the chart. If they're not going to be charted, there's no reason to put it on the 8260-3. Now, the Form 8260-9 is a data record which has things that are not charted, it could go on there but these are not as readily available to the public.
- There kind of already is what you are asking for, for RNAV procedures anyway. The lowest DA (actually the lowest HAT value) will have the distance to the threshold specified in the Profile section of the form,. line 5. On older forms it's in the "Additional Flight Data" section, but it's still there. "Distance to Threshold from 200 HAT: 0.46 [nm]" is how you read this example:

Current version of the form:
View attachment 92812

Previous version (different procedure):
View attachment 92813

Why ILS procedures do not have a similar entry (they do for Cat II ILS procedures, but not Cat I's), I do not know the background on.

The explain to who is someone who has found an 8260/3 and uses it as ‘proof’ that the an ILS MAP is merely an altitude and has no defined geographical ‘point.’ It’s a peeve of mine.
 
The explain to who is someone who has found an 8260/3 and uses it as ‘proof’ that the an ILS MAP is merely an altitude and has no defined geographical ‘point.’ It’s a peeve of mine.
I disagree. The MAP on an ILS is an altitude and doesn't have a defined geographical point. If you can show me where an ILS has a defined geographical point, I'd love to see it. By your logic, if I was flying a crappy ILS and was hanging out 1/4 dot low, I could descend below DA because I hadn't reached my "defined geographical missed approach point."

Seems like the FAA thinks the same way.

FAA-H-8083-15B p 4-50:
upload_2020-12-30_11-40-44.png
 
I disagree. The MAP on an ILS is an altitude and doesn't have a defined geographical point. If you can show me where an ILS has a defined geographical point, I'd love to see it. By your logic, if I was flying a crappy ILS and was hanging out 1/4 dot low, I could descend below DA because I hadn't reached my "defined geographical missed approach point."

Seems like the FAA thinks the same way.

FAA-H-8083-15B p 4-50:
View attachment 92815

Not saying that at all. The rules on DH are explicit and are Law, FAR 91.175 (c). I never said ‘replace’ DH with a distance. Both your excerpt just above in post #65 and the one in your post #39 verify that DH, on Glideslope, does occur at a geographic ‘point.’ All I’ve said is publish that point somewhere
 
Last edited:
When I took my IFR written test years ago, I complained about a couple similar poorly worded questions...the testing center agreed and these were not held against me.
 
Not saying that at all. The rules on DH are explicit and are Law, FAR 91.175 (c). I never said ‘replace’ DH with a distance. Both your excerpt just above in post #65 and the one in your post #39 verify that DH, on Glideslope, does occur at a geographic ‘point.’ All I’ve said is publish that point somewhere
I don't see anything in FAR 91.175(c) that makes me think that the DH/DA is defined over a geographic point. Yes, if you are on glideslope, at the DA, you will be over a geographic point, but that's not what determines when you are at the MAP.

Secondly, what possible purpose would it serve to publish a geographic point where the ILS MAP is besides making things more confusing? What's the benefit?
 
I don't see anything in FAR 91.175(c) that makes me think that the DH/DA is defined over a geographic point. Yes, if you are on glideslope, at the DA, you will be over a geographic point, but that's not what determines when you are at the MAP.

Secondly, what possible purpose would it serve to publish a geographic point where the ILS MAP is besides making things more confusing? What's the benefit?

Me either. There is nothing in 91.175 (c) that says or even implies that. But there is a scenario where knowing where the geographic point is can be important. It’s if you have to begin a missed approach early for some reason, at an altitude well above DH. If the missed approach procedure has turns you are not supposed to make those turns until the missed approach ‘point.’ If the only definition of missed approach point is DH, then it follows you must continue descending to DH even though you can’t land for some reason, which is absurd. Like you get a gear warning. You’ve got way behind the plane and can’t salvage the Approach. ATC says execute missed approach. Etc.
 
Last edited:
Me either. There is nothing in 91.175 (c) that says or even implies that. But there is a scenario where knowing where the geographic point is can be important. It’s if you have to begin a missed approach early for some reason, at an altitude well above DH. If the missed approach procedure has turns you are not supposed to make those turns until the missed approach ‘point.’ If the only definition of missed approach point is DH, then it follows you must continue descending to DH even though you can’t land for some reason, which is absurd. Like you get a gear warning. You’ve got way behind the plane and can’t salvage the Approach. ATC says execute missed approach. Etc.

Now I’m a bit confused on what you’re asking for. Didn’t you previously say that the point didn’t need to be charted, that putting it on the 8260-3 would be sufficient? If it’s not charted, how do you know where it is?
 
Now I’m a bit confused on what you’re asking for. Didn’t you previously say that the point didn’t need to be charted, that putting it on the 8260-3 would be sufficient? If it’s not charted, how do you know where it is?
The U.S. should do what all the other ICAO countries do, issue a chart directly into the 28-day AIP. I have uploaded an example to my FTP site, because it is too large for the forum. For ground-based IAPs, SIDs, and STARs, they issue just a one page chart. For RNAV, particularly RNP AR they include the necessary supplemental pages.

www.wallyroberts.com/lows/lows_aip.pdf

The magenta box around the minimums I added for a different reason.
 
Now I’m a bit confused on what you’re asking for. Didn’t you previously say that the point didn’t need to be charted, that putting it on the 8260-3 would be sufficient? If it’s not charted, how do you know where it is?

Although I think it should be on the Chart and is for most Approaches, read on, what I have been arguing for in this thread is just that it be written somewhere so that it can be shown that the ‘point’ exists. But yeah, I can see your confusion about where I am coming from in my post 69. On most charts something is Charted that will tell the pilot about where he should continue straight ahead to before starting turns in a missed approach procedure with turns. That’s the Missed Approach Point for the non precision approach. It will be there on ILS or LOC Approaches. And ILS Approaches with ‘No Glideslope’ minimums. Those of course are being phased out and replaced with ILS or LOC. Even though it won’t be exactly where the location of DH is, it is close enough to accomplish the intent. There are some ILS only Approaches though that don’t have that, you have to make your best guess.
 
Last edited:
Although I think it should be on the Chart and is for most Approaches, read on, what I have been arguing for in this thread is just that it be written somewhere so that it can be shown that the ‘point’ exists. But yeah, I can see your confusion about where I am coming from in my post 69. On most charts something is Charted that will tell the pilot about where he should continue straight ahead to before starting turns in a missed approach procedure with turns. That’s the Missed Approach Point for the non precision approach. It will be there on ILS or LOC Approaches. And ILS Approaches with ‘No Glideslope’ minimums. Those of course are being phased out and replaced with ILS or LOC. Even though it won’t be exactly where the location of DH is, it is close enough to accomplish the intent. There are some ILS only Approaches though that don’t have that, you have to make your best guess.
I see no purpose for this....nada. It isn't any different on approach charts from other countries.
 
The U.S. should do what all the other ICAO countries do, issue a chart directly into the 28-day AIP.
Still doesn't show where the DH/DA "point" is, so what's the point? I'm not into this pin waltz at all though. Since OEI climb gradients aren't charted for IFR DPs, why should failures of another kind need to clutter up approach charts? Can't we all just do the best we we can under the circumstances? After all, abandoning the approach early means you have extra obstruction clearance already, so guessing at an approximate MAP to begin any required turn isn't going to be as critical. Besides, what about a rejected landing below minimums? Certainly as possible as an early missed approach, I'd think, but you're on your own there too. The best practice then is to apply the DP, presumably something included in an approach briefing (not holding my breath for it), so because you have that in mind who really needs a DH/DA "point"?
 
Long-time lurker here, Instrument rated but not a CFI/CFII.

The plate is for an ILS as well as an S-ILS and Circling. By my understanding, an ILS approach has a DH, not an MDH, and the MAP (unless otherwise specified), I believe, is where the DH is reached while perfectly on the glideslope, which is typically at the runway threshold.

For the S-LOC or Circling, the MDHs are 1100 and 1160MSL, respectively, BUT, as illustrated in the airport diagram that's been discussed, the Missed Approach Point is 4.6 miles from the FAF - which happens to be the runway threshold. Per the Instrument Procedures Handbook, "When a missed approach is executed prior to reaching the MAP, the pilot is to continue along the final approach course, at an altitude above the DA, DH, or MDA, until reaching the MAP before making any turns. If a turn is initiated prior to the MAP, obstacle clearance is not guaranteed." (pg. 5-31, under "Missed Approach")

My first reaction was that the question was a bit poorly worded because it called the approach the RBD ILS 31 instead of the ILS or LOC 31 but, on further reflection, and in the context of that language in the Handbook, the point being made by the question is not to break off an approach and go laterally from the final approach course until the MAP, even if one is shooting the ILS. Basically, if you can't get down to the altitude or can't get the needle centered laterally, it sounds like you need to keep going straight until the MAP before turning per the Missed Approach procedure. By publishing a distance such as this, it would seem to give us a way of knowing where the MAP is on an ILS without depending on us being on glideslope. All of this seems most germane to S-LOCs and Circling but it does appear to also involve ILS approaches.

BTW: from a quick sampling of different ILS plates, every one in my very small sampling size has that info in the same place. They all seem to be the same distance: from the FAF to the threshold. I hadn't paid attention to that - great info!
 
By my understanding, an ILS approach has a DH, not an MDH, and the MAP (unless otherwise specified), I believe, is where the DH is reached while perfectly on the glideslope, which is typically at the runway threshold.
You don't want that, do you? Being 200 feet above the end of the runway when you break out at minimums?
 
P
You don't want that, do you? Being 200 feet above the end of the runway when you break out at minimums?

Perhaps my belief on that piece is incorrect - not sure. Not really essential. The important part for this particular question, whether on an ILS, S-LOC, or circling, is don’t stray laterally from the approach course till the MAP, per the handbook.
 
I personally just hate that the FAA has decided to remove/decommission the MMs. I always thought the MM beeping and flashing was a good audible and visual reminder: "Hey Pilot -- you need to check the altitude because it is time to go missed!"
 
The discussion seems to be devolving into some esoteric minutiae. I get three practical operational things from the chart and one from the test question.

From the chart.
  1. The DA for the ILS is 858. I get there and don't have the necessary visibility and visual references, I begin a straight ahead climb. That's the "decision" in DA. Do I land or do I climb?
  2. For the LOC only approach, the MDA is 1100. I reach that altitude and don't have the necessary visibility and visual references, I may continue straight ahead at the MDA hoping to get them.
  3. In either case, the MAP, thought of as the place where the missed approach procedure begins - is at the same place. 4.6 nm from the FAF
Others may find this surprising or a problem needing repair, but I don't: if you look at the approach in an IFR GPS, you will find it consistent with this paradigm. The MAP waypoint for the ILS - the point after which the system will prompt to begin the missed procedure - is 4.6 nm from FERMO. It's not at some CNF created to identify the precise point in space where 858 is met on a perfectly flown glideslope.

From the question.
It's still a bad question despite the above, because many FAA references describe the MAP on an APV as DA, the place where the approach ends, rather than where the missed begins (the esoteric minutiae part?).

There's a bad question on the multiple-guess knowledge test? Any other breaking news today?

The knowledge test is well known for bad and unclear questions. Sometimes we have to go with the "best" answer, just use our test preparation to dope out the test (which is arguably the primary purpose of "test prep"), and accept that not getting 100 on the test is OK. My takeaway on this chart question? The answer being looked for is the simplest one. Look for where it says "MAP" and read the numbers.
 
Back
Top