Date: 201705
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach; Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Issue: Procedural clarification requested for go-around/missed approach procedures for aircraft on a ILS approach procedure and subsequently cleared for a visual approach. Specifically; precarious situations could rapidly develop during high-workloads and a deviation from prescribed procedures in both the AIM and various flight manuals. Events such as lost communication (equipment failure) or absence of landing clearance coupled with frequency congestion preventing tower communications to go-around aircraft could potentially create hazardous flight conditions as crews scramble to choose a prudent go around/missed approach procedure. Particular cases in point might be DCA ILS 01; SFO ILS 28; or GUC ILS 06.Discussion: As part of my normal approach briefing; I have always briefed an Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) Missed approach procedure that in lieu of no instruction from the tower we will fly the published MAP. At the heart of the argument is a scenario where your aircraft is cleared for a visual and you have to go-around without any guidance from the tower. Two possible courses of action are highlighted below.1. Maintain visual conditions and reattempt contact with ATC for further instructions. This statement is supported by the AIM.AIM 5-4-23E. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason; aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports; aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished; the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances. Argument against the prescribed AIM procedure may entail using Captain's Authority; if communication cannot be established and at the airports listed above violate TFR areas or compromise terrain clearance. 2. Execute published MAP for runway in use in the near term as you try to reattempt contact with ATC. Argument for this maneuver is based upon circling-type maneuver MAP as defined in the AIM 5.4.55C. At a minimum; this maneuver would allow for obstacle clearance and include TERPS (Terminal Instrument Procedures) compliance. And; in the DCA illustration the MAP alleviates penetration into the Restricted Area.AIM 5.55c. If visual reference is lost while circling-to-land from an instrument approach; the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed (unless an alternate missed approach procedure is specified by ATC). To become established on the prescribed missed approach course; the pilot should make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and continue the turn until established on the missed approach course. Inasmuch as the circling maneuver may be accomplished in more than one direction; different patterns will be required to become established on the prescribed missed approach course; depending on the aircraft position at the time visual reference is lost. Adherence to the procedure will help assure that an aircraft will remain laterally within the circling and missed approach obstruction clearance areas. Refer to paragraph H concerning vertical obstruction clearance when starting a missed approach at other than the MAP. To further support this position; AIM 5-4-57 states that lost communications in a non-tower environment you would proceed with a go-around or MAP.AIM 5-4-57: In the event a balked (rejected) landing occurs at a position other than the published missed approach point; the pilot should contact ATC as soon as possible to obtain an amended clearance. If unable to contact ATC for any reason; the pilot should attempt to re-intercept a published segment of the missed approach and comply with route and altitude instructions. If unable to contact ATC; and in the pilot's judgment it is no longer appropriate to fly the published missed approach procedure; then consider either maintaining visual conditions if practicable and reattempt a landing; or a circle/climb over the airport. Should a missed approach become necessary when operating to an airport that is not served by an operating control tower; continuous contact with an air traffic facility may not be possible. In this case; the pilot should execute the appropriate go-around/ missed approach procedure without delay and contact ATC when able to do so. Conclusion: Several years ago; while flying as an FO we could not contact with tower after Approach Cleared us for the Visual after initially being cleared for the LAX ILS 25L. Tower was trying to deal with a runway incursion with a foreign carrier. We went around at 500 feet and proceeded to fly Runway heading (this was almost the MAP; but not exact). Preemptively; upon landing we called the LAX tower Supervisor who cordially told us that they 'expect aircraft to fly the published MAP; if cleared for a visual and cannot establish communication nor obtain landing clearance.'Adding to the noise; Looking at several [company] flight manuals; fleets have different opinions:A320 FM (Flight Manual) is very specific. When flying a visual approach; flying a published MAP is not authorized without ATC approval. [Aircraft 2] FM has a different slant. While conducting a circling approach or 'visual maneuvering;' fly the MAP for runway in use and attempt to contact ATC.[Aircraft 3] FM Almost same verbiage as [Aircraft 2] as stated above.Lastly; the procedural outcome of executing a go-around close in due to equipment failure; tower congestion; etc. obviously could have very detrimental effects. Though gaming every scenario would be near impossible; having consistent guidance or at least a discussion on prudent courses of action would be very beneficial. As a final addendum; it is noteworthy to mention that internet searches have many different opinions on this subject in both the domestic and international regions.

Callback: Reporter stated that he has no supplemental information about the report. He did state that this report was prompted by a recent approach briefing that he accomplished where he briefed that if a go around was necessary after a visual approach; he would execute the published missed approach for an instrument approach to the same runway. When his First Officer remarked that the AIM did not direct a published missed approach after a go-around from a visual approach; a discussion was spawned.  He stated that the actual incident in this report occurred approximately 15 years ago; and he thinks this particular situation could be addressed better than it is.



Synopsis: A320 Captain reported ambiguity in procedures; AIM guidance; and ATC expectations during missed approaches that occur following a go-around from a visual approach clearance given subsequent to an instrument approach clearance.