Is the phrase "going missed" standard in the US?

falstro
  • Is the phrase "going missed" standard in the US? falstro

    The use of the phrase "going around" is specified by ICAO Doc 4444 as the phrase to use when we're aborting the landing and heading for

    • another lap in the traffic pattern if we're on a visual or VFR approach, or
    • the appropriate missed approach procedure if we're on an instrument approach

    However, in the US, I often hear the pilot saying "going missed" when breaking off an instrument approach. Is this standard phraseology in the US, or another one of those non-standard phrases which have gained footing? The 7110.65 only mentions the instruction "go around" (which incidentally is analogous, traffic pattern if visual, missed approach if on instruments), but doesn't say anything about the appropriate pilot phraseology. I couldn't find any reference in the AIM (chapter 4 section 2) either.

    (I also often hear just "missed approach", which I suppose would be appropriate when checking back in with approach, but not with the tower, although feel free to clarify that for me as well)

  • According to the Pilot/Controller Glossary (the closest thing to "regulatory" documentation regarding phrases pilots are supposed to use on the radio) there is no GOING MISSED - there is GO AROUND as an ATC instruction (and by analog GOING AROUND as a pilot's response or notification to ATC to inform them the pilot is doing so), which covers both VFR and IFR operations:

    GO AROUND
    Instructions for a pilot to abandon his/her approach to landing. Additional instructions may follow. Unless otherwise advised by ATC, a VFR aircraft or an aircraft conducting visual approach should overfly the runway while climbing to traffic pattern altitude and enter the traffic pattern via the crosswind leg. A pilot on an IFR flight plan making an instrument approach should execute the published missed approach procedure or proceed as instructed by ATC; e.g., “Go around” (additional instructions if required).

    (There is also an IFR-specific EXECUTE MISSED APPROACH in there.)


    GOING MISSED is not proper/correct phraseology (though much like "tally one" or "got 'em" in place of "traffic in sight" it will generally be understood by ATC - probably with about the same grinding of teeth as the other two phrases get).

    Informing ATC (tower or approach) that you are executing a missed approach by simply saying N12345, Missed Approach is correct phraseology however:

    MISSED APPROACH
    a. …
    b. A term used by the pilot to inform ATC that he/she is executing the missed approach.
    c. …

    and is probably what should be used in place of "Going Missed".

Related questions and answers
  • The use of the phrase "going around" is specified by ICAO Doc 4444 as the phrase to use when we're aborting the landing and heading for another lap in the traffic pattern if we're on a visual or VFR approach, or the appropriate missed approach procedure if we're on an instrument approach However, in the US, I often hear the pilot saying "going missed" when breaking off an instrument approach..., traffic pattern if visual, missed approach if on instruments), but doesn't say anything about the appropriate pilot phraseology. I couldn't find any reference in the AIM (chapter 4 section 2) either

  • I enjoy tracking air traffic at my local KORD. I listen on LiveATC and use my private virtual radar setup to get "real-time" traffic info. I understand which instructions need to be read back by the pilots per this question however on more than one occasion I don't hear read back on critical vector info on departure, despite the visual confirmation of instruction (pilot making proper vector... and that's why I don't hear reply, however on approach side much bigger distances are heard in my area) Thank you I did verify that indeed the aircraft that I don't hear read back from receives

  • Non-precision instrument approaches generally have altitude restrictions which get lower when you get closer to the airport. I always figured these restrictions were AMSL using the current altimeter... you're free to fly higher if it's a particularly cold day. But have a look at LOCKI intersection, the final approach fix. That's at 1500 ft, not at-or-above. At -40, this will put you around 1100 ft above ground level. Although I don't see any obstructions that high during this segment of the approach, as far as I know instrument approaches are supposed to guarantee a 500 ft obstacle clearance, do

  • In a full motion Level C or D simulator like those used by the airlines and for jet type ratings: How should a pilot log the simulator time in their logbook? I.e. Can you log: Total Time Instrument Time Time in Type Cross Country Time Night Time Landings (including night landings) Dual given/received Anything else?

  • My instructor made "request right closed traffic..." call before practicing series of landings. Just wondering, what is the difference with "stay in the pattern..." request and which one and when I have to use? Thanks.

  • Let's say I call up Wx and have the wind direction and I know the runway headings from my charts and the pattern is empty. I can do the math, but it's tedious and slow and even worse when there are multiple runways. This is what I usually do: Runways are 13 and 31 Wind is 253° which rounds to 25 $25-13=12$ $31-25=6$ I'm going to use Runway 31 Is there a trick to determine best runway quickly without doing the math?

  • a particular TAA area; e.g., “NoPT.” Otherwise, the pilot is expected to execute the course reversal under the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.175. The pilot may elect to use the course reversal pattern when it is not required by the procedure, but must inform air traffic control and receive clearance to do so. If an instrument plate contains errors, am I still required to comply with them? ...This is a snippet from the KESC RNAV 36 approach. It's a real procedure, I didn't photoshop it except to add highlighting. Let's say I was in the position that the blue aircraft is in (roughly 10

  • Generally speaking, What programming language is used in aviation for (ATC Radio, Radar, ILS, Auto-pilot and on-board avionics)? Is there a standard enforced by ICAO? Does every plane manufacturer use the programming language they like as long as it's reliable and it goes through testing? I remember watching a documentary on YouTube last year about aviation and it said something about the EU, after WWII, started making standards for aviation systems inside Europe. I will link the video if I can find it

  • I have some questions about circle-to-land approaches. If we have the runway in sight above MDA, do we need to continue to descend to MDA on downwind? Can we just keep fly like a traffic pattern until abeam aiming point and then start the descent? Similarly, If during circle to land approach we lose the runway on downwind but we are above MDA, do we need go missed still toward to the runway? Since we are above MDA we should still have obstacle clearance....

  • On this approach plate, the holding pattern shown is depicted for a missed approach: However, in the notes, it says to Descend to 6000 in holding pattern. even though you should only climb to 4700 feet, according to the missed approach procedure: Climb to 3000 via 166° bearing then climbing left turn to 4700 direct DUT NDB/DME and hold. What does the note actually mean (especially since it seems to be implying you would be higher than 6000 on the missed approach procedure)?

Data information